אִ֚ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִרְקַ֣ח כָּמֹ֔הוּ וַאֲשֶׁ֥ר יִתֵּ֛ן מִמֶּ֖נּוּ עַל־זָ֑ר וְנִכְרַ֖ת מֵעַמָּֽיו׃ (ס)
Ktokolwiek zmięsza podobny mu, i kto namaści nim postronnego, wytraconym będzie z ludu swojego."
Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin
If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it, etc.. And it is written: A man who would compound like it, etc. This implies that for two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation.
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
But Rebbi Ismael himself had a problem: from where does one prove it182This refers to the paragraph before the last, where R. Joḥanan explained that the sister had a special role in the list of incest prohibitions, to deduce that from the different levels of punishment the blanket decree of extirpation really represents separate decrees for each kind of infraction. In Sanhedrin, the name here is Joḥanan. But Ismael may be the correct attribution, since according to one opinion in the Babli, Zebaḥim 107b, this is R. Ismael’s position. S. Liebermann prefers to read “Eleazar” since the supporting argument is quoted in the latter’s name.? Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation183This answers the question. It is rather frequent to find verses containing multiple prohibitions covered by one mention of extirpation where the context makes it clear that each single infraction triggers extirpation.. What is the reason? 184Ex. 30:32,33 regarding the holy oil. Only v. 33 is discussed.It should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation185A person who inadvertently compounds aromatic oil in the same composition as holy oil and uses it on people has to bring two sacrifices. Babli, Makkot 14b.. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? The verse speaks about males. His sister is mentioned to teach about all females186While in the punishments listed in Lev. 20 both sexes are mentioned, the prohibition in Chapter 18 are all formulated for the male, except that the mention of extirpation is formulated (18:29) for “all persons”. Since the punishment for marrying one’s sister is extirpation (20:17) for both partners, it proves that the “persons” mentioned in 18:29 are both male and female.. Does Rebbi Eleazar not accept this? He has it from do not come near187Lev. 18:6, the verse introducing incest prohibitions. While the verse starts אִישׁ אִישׁ it is agreed that the meaning is not “every man” but “every person”., equally male or female. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? He explains it but it is not clear188Since אִישׁ אִישׁ really means “every man” it needs a supporting argument.
מחוור is Babylonian spelling of Galilean מחובר “logically connected”; in the ms. it is a corrector’s change., so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity189Impurity of well-being sacrifices, the only ones available to lay people, is treated at length in Lev. 7:11–27. Impurity of sacrifices available to priests is treated in Lev. 22:1–16. One should assume that a priest who inadvertently eats a combination of impure well-being and other sacrifices has to bring separate purification sacrifices; but this is not the case.? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny190While misuse of all kinds of sancta is larceny, it is punishable only if the monetary value of the misuse is at least one peruṭah. Misuse of one half peruṭah’s worth of Temple donations and one half peruṭah’s worth of sacrifices is not punishable., lest one be liable for them because of mushiness191Sacrificing with the intent of eating of the sacrificial meat out of its time and place., leftovers192Eating of sacrificial meat after its allotted time., and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity193This shows that well-being and other sacrifices are equal in the hand of the Cohen, Mishnah Meˋilah 4:1. The categories of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity do not apply to monetary gifts to the Temple. Anything donated to the Temple which is not a sacrifice or a Temple vessel is sold by the Temple treasurer and thereby reverts to fully profane status.,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split195Somebody committing simultaneous larceny involving gifts to the Temple and sacrifices has to atone separately for the two offenses.. Rebbi Ḥanina196The Genizah text in Sanhedrin reads Ḥinena, preferable for chronological reasons. said, so it is. They split but do not combine197R. Ḥanina’s statement is an assertion that the rules are different for well-being and other sacrifices. This would agree with the Babli, Meˋilah 15a, that in fact well-being and purification offerings do not combine; the contrary statement of the Mishnah is classified as a rabbinic stringency..
מחוור is Babylonian spelling of Galilean מחובר “logically connected”; in the ms. it is a corrector’s change., so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity189Impurity of well-being sacrifices, the only ones available to lay people, is treated at length in Lev. 7:11–27. Impurity of sacrifices available to priests is treated in Lev. 22:1–16. One should assume that a priest who inadvertently eats a combination of impure well-being and other sacrifices has to bring separate purification sacrifices; but this is not the case.? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny190While misuse of all kinds of sancta is larceny, it is punishable only if the monetary value of the misuse is at least one peruṭah. Misuse of one half peruṭah’s worth of Temple donations and one half peruṭah’s worth of sacrifices is not punishable., lest one be liable for them because of mushiness191Sacrificing with the intent of eating of the sacrificial meat out of its time and place., leftovers192Eating of sacrificial meat after its allotted time., and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity193This shows that well-being and other sacrifices are equal in the hand of the Cohen, Mishnah Meˋilah 4:1. The categories of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity do not apply to monetary gifts to the Temple. Anything donated to the Temple which is not a sacrifice or a Temple vessel is sold by the Temple treasurer and thereby reverts to fully profane status.,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split195Somebody committing simultaneous larceny involving gifts to the Temple and sacrifices has to atone separately for the two offenses.. Rebbi Ḥanina196The Genizah text in Sanhedrin reads Ḥinena, preferable for chronological reasons. said, so it is. They split but do not combine197R. Ḥanina’s statement is an assertion that the rules are different for well-being and other sacrifices. This would agree with the Babli, Meˋilah 15a, that in fact well-being and purification offerings do not combine; the contrary statement of the Mishnah is classified as a rabbinic stringency..
Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin
But Rebbi Joḥanan himself had a problem: from where does one prove it95This refers to the paragraph before the last, where R. Johanan explained that the sister had a special role in the list of incest prohibitions, to deduce that from the different levels of punishment the blanket decree of extirpation really represents separate decrees for each kind of infraction. In Šabbat, the name is Ismael; this may be the correct attribution, cf. Note 124.? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation96This answers R. Joḥanan’s question. It is rather frequent to find verses containing multiple prohibitions covered by one mention of extirpation where the context makes it clear that each single infraction triggers extirpation.. For example97Ex. 30:32,33 regarding the holy oil. Only v. 33 is discussed., it should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation98A person who inadvertently compounds aromatic oil in the same composition as holy oil and uses it on people has to bring two sacrifices. The argument is repeated in Halakhah 9:1 (end of fol. 26d) and accepted in the Babli, Makkot 14b.. Also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ura, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity99Impurity of well-being sacrifices, the only ones available to lay people, is treated at length in Lev. 7:11–27. Impurity of sacrifices available to priests is treated in Lev. 22:1–16. One should assume that a priest who inadvertently eats a combination of impure well-being and other sacrifices has to bring separate purification sacrifices; but this is not the case.? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple [regarding larceny]100The text in brackets is found in G and in Šabbat. While misuse of all kinds of sacrifices is also larceny, it is punishable only if the monetary value of the misuse is at least one perutah. Misuse of one half perutah’s worth of Temple donations and one half perutah’s worth of sacrifices is not punishable., lest one be liable for them because of mushiness101Sacrificing with the intent of eating of the sacrificial meat out of its time and place., leftovers102Eating of sacrificial meat after its allotted time., and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity103This shows that well-being and other sacrifices are equal in the hand of the Cohen.,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple104Mishnah Me`ilah 4:1. The categories of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity do not apply to monetary gifts to the Temple. Anything donated to the Temple which is not a sacrifice or a temple vessel is sold by the Temple treasurer and thereby reverts to fully profane status.. Since they do not combine, they do (not)105The word is not in G and Šabbat; it should be deleted. split106Somebody committing simultaneous larceny involving gifts to the Temple and sacrifices has to atone separately for the two offenses.. Rebbi Ḥanina107G reads: Hinena, preferable for chronological reasons. said, what he really questioned, should they not split but combine 108The question remains unanswered why the rules for well-being are no different from those for other sacrifices even for Cohanim. In Šabbat, R. Ḥanina’s statement is an assertion that the rules are different for well-being and other sacrifices. This would agree with the Babli, Me`ilah 15a, that in fact well-being and purification offerings do not combine; the contrary statement of the Mishnah is classified as a rabbinic stringency.?