레위기 1:18의 탈무드

It was stated⁷In order to prove that the adulterer is punished by the bitter water just as the adulteress is., בוא ובה⁸A copyist’s error makes this expression unintelligible. It must read ובא ובה. Than means that instead of וּבָאוּ בָהּ “they will come into her” (v. 27), the final vaw is transferred from the end of the first word to the beginning of the second to read וּבָא וּבָהּ “it will come, and into her”, implying that the water will come into somebody and into her, establishing that the presumed adulterer can also be checked out by the water. The technique of transferring letters is accepted not only by the Yerushalmi (also Nazir 5:1, 43d line 67; Horaiot 1:3, 46a, line 24) but possibly also in the Babli (Yoma 48a, Baba batra 111b, Zebaḥim 25a, Bekhorot 44b).
(Such an argument is quite impossible in a paleo-Hebrew text where the words are separated by a physical divider. The technique of moving letters from the end of one word to the beginning of the following, so much in fashion in modern criticism, presupposes that a change occured at a late time when there were no longer any paleo-Hebrew texts in use.). Is that written? It follows what Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from its beginning to its end⁹It really should be “from end to beginning”.. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. “You have to pour oil on.” You have to pour oil on a flour offering, to subject all flour offerings to pouring¹⁰Lev. 1:6: “You have to break it into little pieces and pour oil over it; [because] it is a flour offering”, speaking of a pan-fried offering. For some flour offerings it is only specified that oil has to be included, or that oil has to be put on it. From this verse one concludes that “putting on” or “mixing” means “pouring oil over the flour”. The argument here proposes to read וְיָצַקְתָּ שֶׁמֶן מִנְחָ֑ה instead of וְיָצַקְתָּ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁ֑מֶן מִנְחָה הִֽיא. This is based on the teaching of R. Aqiba who disregards masoretic accents in all cases (cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale NJ 1995, pp. 306–307) but in the Babli (cf. Note 8) is strongly opposed by Rava who objects to applying a surgeon’s knife to a verse (cf. the explanations of R. Ḥananel in ‘Arukh, s. v. גרע and Rashbam in Baba batra 111b, s. v. אלא.).

A non-Cohen who removed¹¹The formal removal of ashes from the altar.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? Service of bringing¹²Num. 18:7.. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar¹²Num. 18:7.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside¹³Outside a divinely approved place of worship; after the building of the Temple, outside of the Temple district. Worship outside the Temple is sinful only if it imitates Temple ceremonies. Babli 24a., the non-Cohen is liable for inside. What are these? Burning incense, and pouring blood, and making libations of water and wine. This follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Levi said, even removal of the ashes;¹⁴Babli 24a. this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he¹⁵The non-Cohen. stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he¹⁵The non-Cohen. removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others¹⁶Lev. 6:4. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(6)., of lesser value than these. But for him¹⁷According to Sifra, R. Eleazar (the Tanna.) who said others, to include people with bodily defects, there is no difference between a Cohen with a bodily defect and a non-Cohen. Everybody agreed that the non-Cohen who arranged the woods¹⁸The logs of firewood on the altar. is liable. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only for the two logs on which the verse insists that they are Cohen’s service: Aaron’s the priest’s sons shall put fire on the altar and arrange woods¹⁹Lev. 1:7. Since a simple plural always means 2 (Note 138); this establishes a formal requirement that two new logs be brought to the altar at the start of the morning service; Lev. 6:5. Babli 24b..

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even while he is suffering an attack of seizures, one writes the bill of divorce and delivers it to his wife. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, when he regains his sanity¹¹In the Babli, 70b, the attributions are switched, following the later argument in this paragraph (Note 17).. The argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems to be inverted, since they disagreed: ¹²This quote is incomplete; the text has to be completed from Horaiot (Note 10) and a related text in the Babli, Zebaḥim 12b. The completed text must read: “If somebody had eaten forbidden fat and already had prepared his separation sacrifice when he became…” A purification sacrifice is personal; if its owner died it cannot be transferred to another owner or another use, nor can it be redeemed. The question is whether insanity makes a person lose his individuality; if the answer is positive then during the period of insanity the sacrificial animal was ownerless and cannot then or afterwards be of any use; it has to be put away until it dies a natural death. If he became deaf-mute¹³The illiterate deaf-mute has lost his legal personality; cf. Ketubot Chpater 1, Note 134, Yebamot 14:1., or insane, or became an apostate¹⁴Lev. 1:2: “If a person from among you present a sacrifice …” is interpreted to mean that the rules of obligatory sacrifices apply to converts but exclude apostates [Babli Ḥulin 5a, 13b; Erubin 69b; Sifra Wayyiqra Paršata 2(3)]., or the Court ruled that fat may be eaten¹⁵The High Court in the Temple ruled that the circumstances for which the person brings his purification offering do not imply that a sin was committed. Since a purification offering cannot be brought as a voluntary gift, the offering becomes unusable. It is stated here that if the court later reverses itself, R. Joḥanan holds that the sacrifice is not reinstated., Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sacrifice of purification is pushed aside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sacrifice of purification is not pushed aside¹⁶If circumstances change, the sacrifice may be re-instated.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi (Joḥanan) [Aḥa]¹⁷It is obvious that the reading from Horaiot, R. Aḥa, is correct, since R. Joḥanan, who is quoted in the text here, has no influence over what future generations report in his name. R. Aḥa’s tradition is the source of the quote in the Babli (Note 11). switches traditions, to avoid that a word of Rebbi Joḥanan contradict his own word. For Rebbi Samuel¹⁸Since both R. Samuel bar Abba and R. Simeon bar Abba were students of R. Joḥanan, it is impossible to decide between the readings here and in Horaiot. bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One sprinkles the blood of a purification sacrifice or a reparation sacrifice for a person terminally ill¹⁹These sacrifices may not be offered for the deceased. The priest who was informed that the offering was for a terminally ill person can proceed under the assumption that the person is alive at the moment which validates the offering, when the blood of the sacrifice is sprinkled on the wall of the altar.. The rabbis of Caesarea said, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yasa²⁰In Horaiot: R. Immi, the permanent companion of R. Yasa. It follows that the R. Ḥiyya mentioned here is R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, student and successor to R. Joḥanan., one follows the one, the other follows the other²¹It is not stated who followed R. Joḥanan and who R. Simeon ben Laqish; from the following it seems that the Yerushalmi does not accept R. Aḥa’s relabelling of the opinions..

Some baraita implies that the agent of a person acts in his stead, and some baraita implies that the agent of a person does not act in his stead²³Everybody agrees that there exist situations in which an agent acts with the full authority of a principal and others where only the person himself can act. The question is, what is the normal case and what is the exception?. “If he definitively will substitute²⁴This seems to be a quote from Lev. 27:10, but there the masoretic text is הָמֵר יָמִיר. If the word יְמִירֶנּוּ is not a slip of the scribe’s pen, the reference might be to יַחֲליפֶנּוּ (“he himself may exchange it”) in the same verse. There is no explicit baraita in rabbinic literature which would invalidate substitution by agent; the double expression is always interpreted as an addition in R. Aqiba’s system. In Sifra Beḥuqqotay Pereq 9(6), the double expression is interpreted to include a woman for her own sacrifice and an heir for an inherited one. Since the agent is not mentioned, he is excluded. In the Babli, Temurah 2a, the statement of Sifra is characterized as R. Meïr’s., if he himself will dissolve²⁵Num. 30:14. This does not refer to an infinitive construction but to the use of the word יְפֵרֶנּוּ instead of the simple יָפֵר. In R. Aqiba’s system, suffixes always carry a special meaning. The argument is explicit in the Babli, Nazir 12b, where the Tanna R. Joshia quotes Num. 30:14 to prove that a husband cannot delegate his power over his wife’s vows to an attorney. R. Jonathan holds that an agent always can act for his principal..” We may hold that a person’s agent cannot act in his stead because Scripture excluded him. “He shall lean his hand,²⁶Lev. 1:4;3:2,8,13;4:24,29,33, a necessary action to validate a sacrifice. The repetition of his hand in all these verses is taken in the Babli, Menaḥot93b, as proof that any agency is impossible for animal sacrifices.” not the hand of his son nor the hand of his slave nor the hand of his agent²⁷This formulation is in Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 4(2).. We may hold that a person’s agent can act in his stead but [in this case] Scripture excluded him. “His master shall pierce his ear with an awl²⁸Ex. 21:6, speaking of the Hebrew slave; cf. Chapter 1:2.;” “his master” but not the latter’s son, “his master” but not the latter’s agent²⁹Mekhilta dR.Ismael,Neziqin 2 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 253), dR.Simeon ben Ioḥai Mišpaṭim 6:6.. We may hold that a person’s agent can act in his stead but Scripture excluded him. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall pierce”, to include the agent. This follows Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? “His master”, anybody acting on his master’s authority³⁰This opinion is not found in any parallel source..

And he shall lift³⁹Lev. 6:3.. There is no lifting unless he left a remainder⁴⁰Otherwise the verse would have said, “he takes away”.. Which ate. there is no eating less than the volume of an olive. If all of it⁴¹The ashes on the altar. was the volume of an olive? You may not take part of it since there would not be the volume of an olive; you may not take all of it since there would not be a remainder. And he lifts … what the fire ate. I could think wood, the verse says, the elevation sacrifice⁴²The verse reads: He shall lift the ashes from where the fire ate the elevation sacrifice on the altar.. If elevation sacrifice, I could think limbs of an elevation sacrifice⁴³Parts of the daily sacrifice which still are recognizable as such.; the verse says, what the fire ate. How is this? He scoops up from what has been consumed in the middle⁴⁴Where it is most likely from the sacrifice, not the fire wood. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(4). and descends. It is an obligation to bring wood before fire, as it is said⁴⁵Lev. 1:7., they shall arrange on thefire, He mentioned wood before fire. If one arranged before he removed, he throws down and removes, disassembles and removes⁴⁶Since it has been stated that the removal of ashes is first in the service of a new day, and arranging new logs precedes the morning daily sacrifice, any arrangement preceding the removal of ashes is simply addition to the preceding day’s service and may be undone for the new day. Sifra Wayyiqra I Pereq 5(11)..

The behavior of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi¹⁰⁸One of the great sages of the first generation of Amoraïm. He lived in the valley of Beth Shean (Demay2:1). It follows that his way of reading the nightly Shema‘, which is the one followed today, is the oldest. In the Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 4b) he is only reported to have stated the duty to read the Shema‘ before sleeping, with the reason of R. Samuel ben Naḥmani given by a Galilean Amora by the name of R. Yose or R. Assi. The psalms read by R. Joshua ben Levi are detailed in Babli Shevuöt 15b where it is noted that, while it is forbiddden to use Biblical verses as charms in healing, it is admissible to recite them for protection. disagrees since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi read psalms afterwards. But have we not stated: One does not say words after Emet Weyaẓiv? He explains that as relating to Emet Weyaẓiv of the morning prayers¹⁰⁹Here it is obvious that “words after Emet Weyaẓiv” mean any insertion between the benediction גאל ישׂראל and the Amidah prayer. It does not follow that the expression must have the same meaning in the preceding section., since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Abba bar Jeremiah¹¹⁰R. Abba bar Jeremiah seems to have been a Babylonian whose father (or uncle) was a contemporary of Rav and who was the teacher of Rebbi Zeïra (Rebbi Zera in the Babli) when the latter was still in Babylonia. The parallel teaching is mentioned, in the same wording but with a different meaning, in the Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 42a) in the name of Rav.: There are three immediacies: immediately after leaning comes slaughtering¹¹¹In the usual process of bringing a sacrifice in the temple, the votary has to press with his hand on the head of the sacrifice before the slaughter., immediately after hand-washing comes benediction¹¹²It is clear from the following that the meaning here is that immediately after washing one’s hands, while drying them, one has to pronounce the appropriate benediction. [Possibly, it could mean that immediately after washing the hands one has to pronounce the benediction over bread that starts the meal. The urgency of starting the meal directly after washing one’s hands is ascribed in Babli Berakhot 52b to the School of Shammai; this interpretation of the Yerushalmi is implied by R. Aqiba Eiger in his notes to Babli Berakhot42a.] In the Babli, Berakhot 42a, the same expression means that immediately after washing one’s hands after the meal one has to say Grace and is not allowed to eat anymore., immediately after redemption comes prayer¹¹³This means that immediately after reciting the benediction: “Praise to You, o Lord, Who redeemed Israel,” one has to start the Amidah prayer. This creates no problems in the morning prayers but is impossible in the evening since after the benediction (starting Emet Weëmunah or Emet Weyaẓiv) there follows at least one more benediction and a Qaddish to separate the recital of Shema‘ and its benedictions, an unconditional obligation at least from the institutions of the Men of the Great Assembly, and the Amidah prayer that in the night is of conditional Rabbinical character. When the principle “immediately after redemption comes prayer” was adopted also for the evening prayers (see preceding section), the intermediate pieces were declared to be “extensions of the thanksgiving for redemption.” The benediction immediately preceding the Qaddish was fixed by Babylonian Gaonim to be a benediction for future redemption. The Qaddish itself may be a Gaonic institution.. Immediately after leaning comes slaughtering: “He shall lean … he shall slaughter” (Lev. 1:4–5)¹¹⁴Leaning and slaughtering are two obligations of the votary given in two consecutive verses. (However, leaning must be performed by the votary himself but slaughtering can be delegated to a third party.). Immediately after hand-washing comes benediction, (Ps. 134:2) “Lift your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.¹¹⁵Hands lifted in holiness are washed hands. An allusion to this is found in the benediction that does not read “to wash the hands” but “to lift the hands.”” Immediately after redemption comes prayer, (Ps. 19:15) “May the words of my mouth be for goodwill” and it is written after that (Ps. 20:2) “May the Lord answer you on the day of worry.”¹¹⁶This derivation is a good example for the tendency of the Talmud to assume that everybody knows his Bible by heart and that it is enough to quote the start of a sentence in order to recall the entire sentence. The last sentence of Psalm 19 reads in its entirety: “May the words of my mouth be for goodwill before You, o Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer”. The next psalm, disregarding the title “For the director, a psalm of David,” starts: “May the Lord answer you on the day of worry.” Since psalms in ancient manuscripts were written without paragraph divisions, the description of God as redeemer and the mention of help through prayer are consecutive. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: For anyone who immediately slaughters after leaning, no disqualification will appear regarding his sacrifice. For anyone who immediately pronounces the benediction after washing his hands, Satan will not find anything to accuse about at that meal. For anyone who immediately prays after mentioning redemption, Satan will not find anything to accuse him of the entire day¹¹⁷This third statement is quoted in the Babli (Berakhot 9b), in the name of the holy congregation of Jerusalem, i.e., the Tanna R. Yose ben Hammeshullam. To it is appended the story about Rebbi Zera (Zeïra)’s complaint, only there he had to bring myrrh to the king himself. Since R. Zeïra was a Babylonian immigrant to Israel, it is not clear whether his forced labor occured in Babylonia, on the occasion of a visit of the Persian king, or in Galilee where he only had the opportunity to see the interior of the governor’s residence. The language of the story in the Yerushalmi points to its happening in Israel, while the language of the Babli points to the Persian empire. It cannot be decided where the incident happened.. Rebbi Zeïra said, I am used to immediately pray after mentioning redemption and I was conscripted to forced labor, to bring myrrh to the Palace. They said to him: our teacher, that is an honor. There are people who pay money to see the inside of the Palace. Rebbi Immi¹¹⁸In the Babylonian Talmud, he appears as Rebbi Ammi, colleague of Rebbi Assi/Yasa. In the Yerushalmi, his name usually is Immi. His simile is quoted by Rashi, Berakhot 4b. said: Anyone who does not immediately pray after mentioning redemption, whom is he to be likened to? To an acquaintance of the king who comes from afar to the king’s door. When the king comes to see what he wants, he finds that the person left. Hence, the king also leaves.

HALAKHAH: From where the cleaning of the interior altar⁹⁰Since in contrast to the exterior altar, removing ashes from the interior incense altar is never mentioned in the Torah.? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He shall throw it next to the altar, to the East, on the place of ashes⁹¹Lev. 1:16, referring to the crop of a pigeon brought as elevation offering. Cf. Sifra Wayyiqra1Pereq 9(3).. It is unnecessary⁹²The mention on the place of ashes is not needed to fix the place; it instructs the Cohen where to put the ashes. Babli Meˋilah 12a.. If to designate [the place], it already is written, next to the altar. If to teach you that it should be put to the East of the ramp, it already is written, to the East. Also he explained, next to the altar, next to the altar⁹³The first quote is from Lev. 1:16, the second Lev. 6:3, about the ashes from the exterior altar formally deposited next to the altar. Since this case is explicit the exterior altar, the other is taken implicitly to refer to the interior altar.. Since in one case it is to the East of the ramp, so in the other case it is to the East of the ramp. From where that it is forbidden for usufruct⁹⁴Mishnah Meˋilah 3:4 states that from the ashes from the interior altar and the candelabrum one may not have usufruct but taking them is not larceny.? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to a pure place⁹⁵Lev. 6:4. The quote is inappropriate since the verse speaks of the remainder of the ashes on the exterior altar which are transported to a pure place outside the sacred precinct., that its place shall be pure⁹⁶It seems that here “pure” is taken in the sense of “untouched”.. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, from where that the cleaning of the exterior altar is forbidden for usufruct? The verse says, to the place of ashes, that it be its place forever. From where the cleaning of the interior altar? He shall sprinkle on it⁹¹Lev. 1:16, referring to the crop of a pigeon brought as elevation offering. Cf. Sifra Wayyiqra1Pereq 9(3)., he shall burn incense⁹⁸Ex. 30:7. The quote is incomplete since the argument is a comparison of he shall sprinkle on it, and he shall burn incense on it.. Since sprinkling is on its body⁹⁹As explained in Halakhah 5:7, the High Priest on the Day of Atonement is commanded to sprinkle blood on the interior altar on it, on the cleaned metal surface directly, not on ashes or unburned incense. The rule is then transferred to everyday’s burning of incense since the same expression is used., also burning incense on its body. From where that the interior altar is forbidden for usufruct? An argument de minore ad majus. If from the exterior altar it is forbidden, so much more from the interior¹⁰⁰Since the external altar is accessible to all Cohanim at all times, the internal only to a selected Cohen twice a day..

Rebbi Idi said before Rebbi Yose, a slave is permitted his sister¹⁰⁰As the Babli explains (Sanhedrin 58b), he is no longer a Gentile but not yet a responsible Jew. He cannot be punished in either law and he cannot legally marry.. He said to him, did you hear this even if she is from the same mother? He said, yes. He said to him, but did we not state: “The same applies to a slave girl who was freed together with her sons.” For ḥalîṣah and levirate¹⁰¹But not for criminal matters. The convert changed from one set of laws to another; the libertine enters a set of laws that previously were not applicable to her.. Rebbi Phineas said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yasa: A slave who slept with his mother is obligated for a purification sacrifice. “You shall command them¹⁰²Lev. 1:2. After the introduction: “Speak to the Children of Israel”, the addition “you shall command them” seems superfluous unless it includes people whose inclusion among the Children of Israel is doubtful.,” including slaves¹⁰³Since in theory anything a slaves owns belongs to his master, any obligation of sacrifice would have to be deferred until after the slave’s manumission.. Or should we say, this was said about fat¹⁰⁴While a slave is obligated to obey all prohibitions in the Torah, it may be that in matters of sexual relations his status is different. (Since slaves cannot marry, as a matter of principle promiscuity is permitted to them; cf. Terumot Chapter 8, Note 247.)? Do we find in his relation to his mother that her converted aspect accompanies the unconverted aspect just as with a slave girl her converted aspect accompanies the unconverted aspect¹⁰⁵A betrothed girl is a wife for criminal law; adultery with her is a capital crime (Deut. 22:23–24). By contrast, adultery with a half-freed slave girl engaged to be married to a free man (in expectation of her full emancipation; she did belong to two masters one of whom manumitted his share) can be expiated by a reparation offering (Lev. 19:20–22; Sifra Qedošim Pereq 5). This shows that her semi-free status interferes with the operation of criminal law for free persons. In analogy, we could conjecture that the status of a slave as incompletely converted (since he is not obligated to observe most positive commandments) interferes with the operation of the laws of obligatory sacrifices.
The problem is not resolved, probably because it is not realistic.?

⁸⁰This paragraph also appears in Šeqalim2:4 (ש). The readings of the editio princeps of the Babli with Yerushalmi Šeqalim are noted (שׁ); those of interest of the very shortened Munich ms. of the Babli as (M). The version of Šeqalim in the Babli is characterized by much babylonized spelling; there is an addition in Babylonian Aramaic directly taken from the parallel in the Babli Zevaḥim 8b-9a. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba⁸¹He is the father of Samuel (Babli Zevaḥim 8b), head of the school of Nahardea in the generation of transition from Tannaim to Amoraim. He reports a Babylonian tradition. enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed⁸²An offering in the Temple declared as Pesaḥ on any day other than the 14th of Nisan automatically is for well-being. Therefore animals dedicated as Pesaḥ but not needed on the 14th, at nightfall of the 15th automatically become dedicated well-being offerings. into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says⁸³Lev. 3:6., and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering [from small cattle]⁸⁴Scribe’s text, incorrectly deleted by corrector and missing in printed editions but confiirmed by ש. K is lacunary at this point.? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering⁸⁵Which never comes from large cattle.? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. [Rebbi Abun objected,]⁸⁴Scribe’s text, incorrectly deleted by corrector and missing in printed editions but confiirmed by ש. K is lacunary at this point. everywhere you are saying that מִן is to include, but here you are saying that מִן is to exclude⁸⁶The text is difficult since it is standard rabbinic interpretation to consider prefix mem or מִן as privative, excluding certain categories (cf. Šabbat 7 Note 26, Ševuot 1:2 Note 75, Bava Mesiaˋ 4:8 Note 122, Nazir5:4 Note 105). Also in the next sentence, R. Mana gives the interpretation that here מִן is privative. On the other hand, the testimony of K, M, and the scribe’s text of ש do not permit emendation. It seems that here “every where” is derogatory, meaning Babylonian. The sequence of arguments leads to a contradiction. Abba bar Abba treats מִן as inclusive, R. Abun bar Cahana as exclusive. R. Mana explains that מִן always is partitive; automatic switch to well-being offerings is possible only for sacrifices that totally correspond to the declaration צאן, i. e., both sheep and goats, male and female.? Rebbi Mana said, it excludes it, since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written,⁸⁷Lev. 1:10. and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, [but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten.]⁸⁸Addition by the corrector from ש, confirmed by K. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices⁸⁹The latter category includes both elevation and reparation sacrifices.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that you are saying, Pesaḥ is changed⁸²An offering in the Temple declared as Pesaḥ on any day other than the 14th of Nisan automatically is for well-being. Therefore animals dedicated as Pesaḥ but not needed on the 14th, at nightfall of the 15th automatically become dedicated well-being offerings. into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi [Il]la said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan : And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering⁸³Lev. 3:6.; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts⁹⁰If the animal dedicated as Pesaḥ is used against the rules for something other than a well-being offering, do the rules of the other kind apply or is it disqualified and no rules of intent apply.? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day⁹¹This being forbidden certainly disqualifies.. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul⁹²If the animal still is a sacrifice, now under the rules of elevation sacrifices, the intention to perform any required action out of its prescribed time-frame generates piggul, which is a deadly sin causing extirpation.. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

Shimon the Righteous was one of the last surviving members of the Men of the Great Assembly. He would say: The world stands on three things: on the Torah, on the Temple service, and on acts of kindness.
On the Torah. How so? It says (Hosea 6:6), “I desire kindness, not a well-being offering (zevach), and the knowledge of God [which comes from studying Torah] more than burnt offerings (olot).” From here we learn that the burnt offering is more beloved than the well-being offering, because the burnt offering is entirely consumed in the fires, as it says (Leviticus 1:9), “The priest shall turn the whole thing into smoke on the altar.” And in another place (I Samuel 7:9), it says, “Samuel took one milking lamb, and offered it to be consumed, as a burnt offering to the Eternal.” And the study of Torah is more beloved before the Omnipresent God than offerings, for if a person studys Torah, he comes to have knowledge of the Omnipresent God, as it says (Proverbs 2:5), “Then you will understand the awe of the Eternal and you will discover the knowledge of God.” From here we learn that when a sage sits and expounds before the congregation, Scripture considers it as if he brought fat and blood upon the altar.
If two Torah scholars are sitting and laboring in the Torah, and a bridal or funeral procession passes by, if there are already enough people participating, these two should not leave their studying; but if not, they should get up and offer words of Torah and praise to the bride, or escort the dead.

HALAKHAH: They shall arrange¹³⁷Lev. 1:7. The theme of the Halakhah is to find a biblical source for the number of Cohanim used to bring the parts of the daily sacrifices to the altar.. I could think, a hundred; I could think, a thousand. ¹³⁸The remainder of the Paragraph also is Sifra MesoraˋParashah 5(5–9). Its topic is the interpretation of prescriptive biblical verses in the absence of numerical data. The theory expounded here is what the author has called the axiom of definiteness: Biblical language in legal contexts is definite (H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth ed., London 1966., pp. 171–196, in particular pp. 174–175.) In the situation considered here it is noted that the set of numbers >1 has a smallest element, 2, but no largest one. Therefore an indefinite plural used in a biblical law must mean 2, otherwise the meaning would not be definite. This is applied to the laws of zava, a woman impure by non-menstrual blood flow for many days. By the principle of definiteness this means that days are 2, the number of many days is the smallest number >2, or 3. Rebbi Aqiba said, anywhere you could understand many or you could understand few, if you took the many you took nothing, if you took few you took¹³⁹Babli Megillah 17a, Sanhedrin 5a.. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, two measures; one finite, the other infinite. Everybody measures with the finite measure, but nobody measures with the infinite measure. Rebbi Nehemiah said, does the verse come to open or to lock in? It does not come to lock in but to open¹⁴⁰In Babylonian sources, this statement is credited to R. Yose; Seder Olam Chapter 1 (in the author’s edition, Northvale 1998, p. 3, Note 5, pp. 5–8.). If you are saying days¹⁴¹Lev. 15:25. are ten, they could be 100 or 200 or 1’000 or 10’000. But if you say days are two, you did unlock. Rebbi Muna¹⁴²The Tanna. said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah. Days are two. I could think that days are many. If they are many, why is it said, many? Therefore the verse only spoke of few days. How much are they? It means two; many are three. I could think that many (days) means ten. It says days and it says many. Since the minimum of days are two, so for many, the minimum of many are three. I could think that two and three make five. But is it said, days [and many]? It only is said, many days. How is this? These many should be more than two. How many are they? It implies three.

⁸⁶This and the next paragraph also appear in Pesaḥim5:1, Notes 80–97, where also the readings of B are noted (ג is unreadable or lacunary for the present paragraph.) Only the most necessary notes are given here, the remainder should be consulted there. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says⁸⁷Lev. 3:6., and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering from small cattle? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]⁸⁸The text is difficult since it is standard rabbinic interpretation to consider prefix mem or מִן as privative, excluding certain categories (cf. Šabbat7 Note 26, Ševuot1:2 Note 75, Bava Meṣia`4:8 Note 122, Nazir5:4 Note 105). Also in the next sentence, R. Mana gives the interpretation that here מִן is privative. On the other hand, the testimony of the scribe’s two texts, the Genizah fragment available for Pesaḥim, and the Munich ms. of Šeqalim do not permit emendation. It seems that here “every where” is derogatory, meaning Babylonian. The sequence of arguments leads to a contradiction. Abba bar Abba treats מִן as inclusive, R. Abun bar Cahana as exclusive. R. Mana explains that מִן always is partitive; automatic switch to well-being offerings is possible only for sacrifices that totally correspond to the declaration צאן, i. e., both sheep and goats, male and female.. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes]⁸⁹Corrector’s addition from B. since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written,⁹⁰Lev. 1:10. and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that they are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Illa said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering⁸⁷Lev. 3:6.; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts⁹¹If the animal dedicated as Pesaḥ is used against the rules for something other than a well-being offering, do the rules of the other kind apply or is it disqualified and no rules of intent apply?? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul⁹²If the animal still is a sacrifice, now under the rules of elevation sacrifices, the intention to perform any required action out of its prescribed time-frame is piggul, a deadly sin causing extirpation.. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified⁹³If the animal is disqualified and not under the rule of any kind of sacrifice, the illegitimate intent is inconsequential..

⁸⁶This and the next paragraph also appear in Pesaḥim5:1, Notes 80–97, where also the readings of B are noted (ג is unreadable or lacunary for the present paragraph.) Only the most necessary notes are given here, the remainder should be consulted there. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says⁸⁷Lev. 3:6., and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering from small cattle? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]⁸⁸The text is difficult since it is standard rabbinic interpretation to consider prefix mem or מִן as privative, excluding certain categories (cf. Šabbat7 Note 26, Ševuot1:2 Note 75, Bava Meṣia`4:8 Note 122, Nazir5:4 Note 105). Also in the next sentence, R. Mana gives the interpretation that here מִן is privative. On the other hand, the testimony of the scribe’s two texts, the Genizah fragment available for Pesaḥim, and the Munich ms. of Šeqalim do not permit emendation. It seems that here “every where” is derogatory, meaning Babylonian. The sequence of arguments leads to a contradiction. Abba bar Abba treats מִן as inclusive, R. Abun bar Cahana as exclusive. R. Mana explains that מִן always is partitive; automatic switch to well-being offerings is possible only for sacrifices that totally correspond to the declaration צאן, i. e., both sheep and goats, male and female.. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes]⁸⁹Corrector’s addition from B. since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written,⁹⁰Lev. 1:10. and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that they are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Illa said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering⁸⁷Lev. 3:6.; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts⁹¹If the animal dedicated as Pesaḥ is used against the rules for something other than a well-being offering, do the rules of the other kind apply or is it disqualified and no rules of intent apply?? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul⁹²If the animal still is a sacrifice, now under the rules of elevation sacrifices, the intention to perform any required action out of its prescribed time-frame is piggul, a deadly sin causing extirpation.. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified⁹³If the animal is disqualified and not under the rule of any kind of sacrifice, the illegitimate intent is inconsequential..

¹⁴³This paragraph is Sifra Wayyiqra I Pereq 6(1).The sons of Aaron shall arrange¹³⁷Lev. 1:7. The theme of the Halakhah is to find a biblical source for the number of Cohanim used to bring the parts of the daily sacrifices to the altar.. I could think, a hundred; the verse says, the Cohen shall arrange¹⁴⁴Lev. 1:12.. [If the Cohen shall arrange,] I could think that a single Cohen should arrange all the limbs; the verse says, they shall arrange. How is this? One Cohen arranges two limbs. How many limbs are there? Ten, and one for the intestines. It turns out that the lamb comes up by six (priests}, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, they shall arrange, two; the sons of Aaron, two; the priests, two¹⁴⁵Babli 27a.. This teaches that the lamb comes up by six {priests}. [The priest, to include the bald-headed, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.]¹⁴⁶The sentence in brackets was added by the corrector, probably from Sifra. It has no connection with the topic under discussion. Babli Bekhorot 43b.

⁸⁶This and the next paragraph also appear in Pesaḥim5:1, Notes 80–97, where also the readings of B are noted (ג is unreadable or lacunary for the present paragraph.) Only the most necessary notes are given here, the remainder should be consulted there. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says⁸⁷Lev. 3:6., and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering from small cattle? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]⁸⁸The text is difficult since it is standard rabbinic interpretation to consider prefix mem or מִן as privative, excluding certain categories (cf. Šabbat7 Note 26, Ševuot1:2 Note 75, Bava Meṣia`4:8 Note 122, Nazir5:4 Note 105). Also in the next sentence, R. Mana gives the interpretation that here מִן is privative. On the other hand, the testimony of the scribe’s two texts, the Genizah fragment available for Pesaḥim, and the Munich ms. of Šeqalim do not permit emendation. It seems that here “every where” is derogatory, meaning Babylonian. The sequence of arguments leads to a contradiction. Abba bar Abba treats מִן as inclusive, R. Abun bar Cahana as exclusive. R. Mana explains that מִן always is partitive; automatic switch to well-being offerings is possible only for sacrifices that totally correspond to the declaration צאן, i. e., both sheep and goats, male and female.. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes]⁸⁹Corrector’s addition from B. since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written,⁹⁰Lev. 1:10. and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that they are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Illa said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering⁸⁷Lev. 3:6.; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts⁹¹If the animal dedicated as Pesaḥ is used against the rules for something other than a well-being offering, do the rules of the other kind apply or is it disqualified and no rules of intent apply?? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul⁹²If the animal still is a sacrifice, now under the rules of elevation sacrifices, the intention to perform any required action out of its prescribed time-frame is piggul, a deadly sin causing extirpation.. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified⁹³If the animal is disqualified and not under the rule of any kind of sacrifice, the illegitimate intent is inconsequential..

¹⁴³This paragraph is Sifra Wayyiqra I Pereq 6(1).The sons of Aaron shall arrange¹³⁷Lev. 1:7. The theme of the Halakhah is to find a biblical source for the number of Cohanim used to bring the parts of the daily sacrifices to the altar.. I could think, a hundred; the verse says, the Cohen shall arrange¹⁴⁴Lev. 1:12.. [If the Cohen shall arrange,] I could think that a single Cohen should arrange all the limbs; the verse says, they shall arrange. How is this? One Cohen arranges two limbs. How many limbs are there? Ten, and one for the intestines. It turns out that the lamb comes up by six (priests}, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, they shall arrange, two; the sons of Aaron, two; the priests, two¹⁴⁵Babli 27a.. This teaches that the lamb comes up by six {priests}. [The priest, to include the bald-headed, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.]¹⁴⁶The sentence in brackets was added by the corrector, probably from Sifra. It has no connection with the topic under discussion. Babli Bekhorot 43b.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about Gentiles, therefore not about Samaritans. It was stated so¹²⁶Sifra Wayyiqra I (Ḥovah) Pereq2(3).: “A human¹²⁷Lev. 1:2. This use of human follows R.. Simeon’s interpretation of Ez. 34:30, where he reads אָדָ֣ם אַתֶּ֑ם as “you are noblemen” (Accadic awēlum), a title reserved for members of the Covenant. Since the Samaritans are descendants of proselytes, they are included in all obligations and privileges of the covenant and cannot be excluded from any of these., to include the proselytes. From among you¹²⁸Reading prefix mem as privative; excluding people who removed themselves from the Covenant. It seems that ג reads “removed from discipline”., to exclude the apostates.” The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “One does not accept nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, nests of female sufferers from flux, nests of women having given birth.” Do there exist nests of sufferers from gonorrhea and flux among Gentiles¹²⁹These kinds of impurity do not apply to Gentiles who anyhow do not need them since they only are required to permit the healed person to enter the sanctuary or eat sancta, from which Gentiles are excluded.? But the beginning is about Gentiles, the end about Samaritans¹³⁰The statement that one does not accept the sheqel from them (but also that one accepts their voluntary sacrifices.) The rest is Rebbi’s formulation to exclude Samaritans from Jewish worship.. So it is, the beginning is about Gentiles, the end about Samaritans.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about Gentiles, therefore not about Samaritans. It was stated so¹²⁶Sifra Wayyiqra I (Ḥovah) Pereq2(3).: “A human¹²⁷Lev. 1:2. This use of human follows R.. Simeon’s interpretation of Ez. 34:30, where he reads אָדָ֣ם אַתֶּ֑ם as “you are noblemen” (Accadic awēlum), a title reserved for members of the Covenant. Since the Samaritans are descendants of proselytes, they are included in all obligations and privileges of the covenant and cannot be excluded from any of these., to include the proselytes. From among you¹²⁸Reading prefix mem as privative; excluding people who removed themselves from the Covenant. It seems that ג reads “removed from discipline”., to exclude the apostates.” The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “One does not accept nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, nests of female sufferers from flux, nests of women having given birth.” Do there exist nests of sufferers from gonorrhea and flux among Gentiles¹²⁹These kinds of impurity do not apply to Gentiles who anyhow do not need them since they only are required to permit the healed person to enter the sanctuary or eat sancta, from which Gentiles are excluded.? But the beginning is about Gentiles, the end about Samaritans¹³⁰The statement that one does not accept the sheqel from them (but also that one accepts their voluntary sacrifices.) The rest is Rebbi’s formulation to exclude Samaritans from Jewish worship.. So it is, the beginning is about Gentiles, the end about Samaritans.

But does the verse not speak of cattle¹⁴⁶The sentence in brackets was added by the corrector, probably from Sifra. It has no connection with the topic under discussion. Babli Bekhorot 43b.? Where does the verse imply that it is written about the daily morning sacrifice? Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: It is written here¹⁴⁷Lev. 1:7 is written in the paragraph about elevation offerings of cattle; only Lev.1:12 is about elevation offerings of sheep, including the daily sacrifice. The argument of the preceding paragraph seems pointless. arranging, and it is written there, the Cohen shall arrange them. Since concerning the arrangement mentioned there, the verse speaks about the daily morning sacrifice, so also concerning the arrangement mentioned here, the verse speaks about the daily morning sacrifice. Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, this is unnecessary. From the meaning of they shall arrange, do we not understand that they are two? And you explain, they shall arrange, two; the sons of Aaron, two; the priests, two; and it was stated so: Nothing precedes the daily sacrifice but incense^49,Since the daily sacrifice is scheduled בבוקר “in the morning (Ex. 29:39) but the incense בבוקר בבוקר “in the early morning (Ex. 30:7); cf. Halakhah 3:5. Babli Pesaḥim59a.¹⁴⁸Ulla's argument goes as follows. Since arranging the wood on the altar belongs to the preparations of the morning service, and no cattle can be offered as elevation offering (or any other) before the daily morning sacrifice, necessarily Lev. 1:7 is written for the preparation of all offerings for the new day, including the daily sacrifice..

⁸⁷The main place of this paragraph is in Megilla 4:1, which deals with the rules of the Aramaic translation of the Torah in public worship. While in principle the translator may choose his own words, in a few instances rabbinic authorities insisted that certain expressions are too imprecise. The first one is the translation of טנא by “vessel” instead of “basket”, the second one that of מצות ומרורים (Num. 9:11) by “unleavened bread and vegetables.” The paragraph is included here since from the preceding paragraph it is inferred that R. Jonah is the stickler for the correct translation of טנא. The addition of the unconnected statement of R. Phineas shows that the paragraph is copied from Megillah and not vice-versa.
The Targumim follow R. Jonah and R. Jeremiah but not R. Phineas. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Jeremiah. One says, one repeats “vessel”. The other one says, one repeats “unleavened with vegetables” because you have to say “unleavened with bitter herbs.” We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Jonah said, may one bring in large silver baskets, that shows that he must have said that one repeats “vessel”. One must say: “basket.” Rebbi Phineas said, one must repeat (Lev. 1:14): “Fattened and young pigeons” because one must say “pigeons and young pigeons.”

It was stated: Ben Bag-bag says, a perfect lamb, shorn is not perfect. But was it not stated, of small cattle⁷⁵Lev. 1:2. As always, prefix mem is read as: from some, not all., to exclude the smooth of them. Rebbi Abun said, to exclude those which the Torah separated⁷⁶Sifra Wayyiqra I (Nedavah) Pereq 2., the male or female used for bestiality, one dedicated for idolatrous worship, and one worshipped.

‘R. Joshua b. Levi said: Every day’, etc. Whence do we know this? For it is written, Hark! the Lord crieth [yiḳra’] unto the city—and it is wisdom to have regard for Thy name.¹⁰⁵Micah 6, 9. Perhaps the verse speaks of an ordinary voice [calling and not a Bath Ḳol]? Here it is stated yiḳra’, and elsewhere it is stated, And the Lord called [wayyiḳra’] unto him out of the mountain:¹⁰⁶Ex. 19, 3. as there it was [God calling] from Sinai, so here too it is [God calling] from Sinai. Alternately, here it states yiḳra’ and of the tent of meeting it states, And the Lord called [wayyiḳra’] unto Moses, and spoke unto him out of the tent of meeting.¹⁰⁷Lev. 1, 1. But it might be argued that here¹⁰⁸In Micah 6, 9, where the word ḳol is used, translated hark. it uses the word ḳol and elsewhere it states, God answered him by a voice [beḳol]!¹⁰⁹Ex. 19, 19, which seems to imply that it was not God Who spoke. Then quote, Then he heard the Voice speaking.¹¹⁰Num. 7, 89. Here it is clear that God is speaking. [It might also be argued,] Here it states, unto the city¹¹¹In Micah 6, 9, and therefore the comparison is not complete. and there it does not! [Draw the inference] from the following: Hark [ḳol]! one calleth [ḳore’]: Clear ye in the wilderness the way of the Lord,¹¹²Isa. 40, 3. where ‘calling’ and ‘wilderness’ occur, and it is written, They encamped in the wilderness¹¹³Ex. 19, 2, which refers to a time before Sinai.—perhaps this refers to the periodical ‘callings’! When it mentions ‘calling’ it implies a regular calling, as it is written, When I call unto them, they stand up together.¹¹⁴Isa. 48, 13.
Our Rabbis have taught:¹¹⁵Ber. 55a (Sonc. ed., p. 335). R. Joḥanan there enumerates three things: famine, plenty and leadership. Five things the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself proclaims, viz.: the leader, famine, plenty, the sword, and those who escape the sword. ‘The leader’, as it is written, See, I have called by name Beẓalel.¹¹⁶Ex. 31, 2. ‘Famine’, as it is written, For the Lord hath called for a famine.¹¹⁷2 Kings 8, 1. ‘Plenty’, as it is written, And I will call for the corn and will increase it.¹¹⁸Ezek. 36, 29. ‘The sword’, as it is written, For I will call for a sword.¹¹⁹Jer. 25, 29. ‘Those who escape the sword’, as it is written, And among the remnant those whom the Lord shall call.¹²⁰Joel 3, 5. It is all right with three since the Divine Name is written in connection with them, but with And I will call for the corn, perhaps [this means] by a messenger, as it is written, I will call my servant Eliaḳim!¹²¹Isa. 22, 20. If you do not admit this, surely there [with Eliaḳim] the Divine Presence called to him [to act as leader], because it was similar to that of Beẓalel who was a leader.

HALAKHAH: ⁵⁴⁰Corrector’s addition, inserted at the wrong place since this paragraph is a direct continuation of the preceding one, showing that at all times a prophet may legally build an altar separate from the official sanctuary. As noted in N. 537, Deuteronomy nowhere declares that only one sanctuary is tolerated, but only that the place of sacrifices must have been chosen by the Eternal. The high cost of official worship as demanded in Num. 28–29 automatically restricts permanent worship to one place, making any additional place used on the authority of a recognized prophet a temporary matter. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius understood it from the following⁵⁴¹Jos. 8:30. Since the altar on Mount Ebal was built at the time when the Tent and Moses’s altar were at Gilgal, this proves that at this time secondary public altars were not forbidden.: Then Joshua would build an altar for the Eternal, the God of Israel, on Mount Ebal. Not only Mount Ebal, from where Shilo⁵⁴²That several official and private altars were permitted after the destruction of Shilo.? Samuel took a milk lamb and brought it up totally as elevation offering for the Eternal⁵⁴³1S. 7:9.. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, three sins were permitted for Samuel’s sheep: It and its hide⁵⁴⁴In Lev. 1:6 it is decreed that an elevation offering is burned without its hide. Babli Zevaḥim 120a., and deficient in time⁵⁴⁵This is not spelled out in the verse. No lamb may be sacrificed on an official altar if it is not at least 8 days old; Lev. 23:27., and he was a Levite⁵⁴⁶He was a descendant of Qoraḥ, and only descendants of Aaron may officiate at a public altar.. Rebbi Yose said, if about this it implies nothing, since Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, seven sins were permitted for Gideon’s bull⁵⁴⁷Jud. 6:25–27. The stones had been used for an altar of Baal, therefore they were forbidden for all usufruct together with the wood of the Asherah tree. They could have been used only by direct commandment from God. That the bull had been worshipped as a deity is deduced from the involved language in the verse, where a single bull is called “second” to show that two sins were committed with it. (Babli Temurah 28b.) That sacrifices are permitted only during daytime is deduced from Lev. 7:38 (Halakhah 2:5). In Gideon’s time the sanctuary of Shilo was in existence.: Disqualified stones, and Asherah wood, and separated, and worshipped, and night, and outsider, and altar prohibition. He who wants may understand it well from that by Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: When he returned to Rama, for there was his house, and there he judged Israel, and there he built an altar for the Eternal⁵⁴⁸1S. 8:17, after the destruction of Shilo.. It is written⁵⁴⁹1S. 9:24., the cook lifted the thigh and what was on it and put before Saul, etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the thigh and meat⁵⁵⁰The thigh belongs to the officiating Cohen (Ex. 29:27–28); Saul could have received it only if no Cohen was officiating at the altar. Babli Avodah zarah 25a, Zevaḥim 119b.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the thigh and the fat tail⁵⁵¹The fat tail is to be burned on the altar, Lev. 3:9.. Rebbi Eleazar said, the thigh and the breast⁵⁵⁰The thigh belongs to the officiating Cohen (Ex. 29:27–28); Saul could have received it only if no Cohen was officiating at the altar. Babli Avodah zarah 25a, Zevaḥim 119b., as Rebbi Eleazar said, the thigh and the breast belong to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The hide of the elevation sacrifice belongs to the Cohanim at a public altar<sup>552</sup>In Lev. 7:8 it is decreed that the hide belongs to the officiating Cohen. Since a non-Cohen was shown to be able to officiate at a private altar, the hide belongs to the owner. Babli Zevaḥim 119b. but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The contribution of a thanksgiving sacrifice⁵⁵³The officiating Cohen’s part of the breads accompanying the sacrifice, Lev. 7:14. belongs to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, is the night qualified at a private altar⁵⁵⁴Since on an official altar sacrifices are possible only during daytime, Halakhah 2:5.? Rebbi Eleazar answered, is it not written,⁵⁵⁵1S. 14:34. It is stated in the verse that the slaughter was in the night; in v. 35 it is stated that Saul built an altar. Saul said, disperse under the people and tell them, every man shall bring to me his ox, etc. And it is written⁵⁵⁶1S. 14:33, they engaged in pagan slaughter., they told Saul saying, behold the people are sinning against the Eternal by eating on the blood, etc. How is this? The night for profane {slaughter}, and the day for sacrificial. When Rebbi Joḥanan heard this, he said, well did Rebbi Eleazar teach us⁵⁵⁷That the verse emphasizes profane slaughter during nighttime. Babli Zevaḥim 120a..