Talmud do Wyjścia 12:9

Are sacrifices forbidden for the uncircumcised? One cannot deduce the answer from Passover since they are not subject to [the prohibition of] breaking a bone¹⁸No bone may be broken of the Passover sacrifice; Ex. 12:46. The bone marrow of other sacrificial animals is not forbidden. Therefore, no argument de minore ad majus is possible from Passover to other sacrifices., neither from heave since that would be inference after inference¹⁹In general, the rules of R. Ismael may be combined with one another; an exeption are the rules of sacrifices and sanctified matter. This is discussed in detail in the Babli, Zebaḥim Chapter 5, which has no parallel in the Yerushalmi. Even though the authorities quoted there are all Babylonian, the reference here shows that the basis of the arguments is a Yerushalmi tradition. It is stated in Babli, Zebaḥim 50a, that rules 2 and 3 in the scheme of R. Ismael cannot be used one after the other. Since the exclusion of the uncircumcised from heave was an application of rule 2 (Note 12), the result cannot be used as premiss for an argument of type 3. An attempt to formulate the rules in an extension of symbolic logic is in H. Guggenheimer, Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, 150–164.. At the end, you have to say “from it, from it²⁰An application of rule 2 (Note 12)..” Since “from it”²¹Ex. 12:9 (once), 10 (twice). The Babli must reject this argument since it deduces laws of Passover from all three instances of the word. which was said in the laws of Passover implies that the uncircumcised is disqualified, so “from it”²²Lev. 7:14. The verse is quoted in Mishnah Menaḥot 8:2. which was said in the laws of sacrifices must imply that the uncircumcised is disqualified. Are sacrifices forbidden for the mourner?²³There is no inference to be drawn from Lev. 10:6 since, after the death of Nadab and Abihu, Aaron and his sons were commanded not to mourn. “From it, from it.” Since “from it” which was said in the laws of tithe²⁴The Second Tithe, Deut. 26:14. states that the mourner is disqualified, so “from it” which was said in the laws of Passover²⁵This word indicates an oversight by editor or copyist since (1) from the laws of Passover nothing can be inferred for other sacrifices and (2) the mourner (whose relative died outside of Jerusalem so that he could not defile himself) is admitted to the Passover sacrifice. It most probably should read “sacrifices” (Note 22). must imply that the mourner is disqualified.

Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest⁵⁸Since the argument of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua is about rabbinic restrictions because of Sabbath rest, it is implied that the list of items in Mishnah 2 about which R. Eliezer dissents contains only rabbinic prohibitions. But bringing anything from outside the Sabbath domain is a biblical prohibition.? ⁵⁹The next sentences are from Eruvin 3, Notes 127–131. This supports what Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation! He said to him, is there not written⁶⁰Ex. 12:9. This belongs to the discussion there whether all pentateuchal prohibitions are legally prosecutable, or only those formulated as לֹא whereas those introduced by the negation אַל are simply moral obligations. Since the latter then cannot be enforced in court by biblical standards, they are equal in rank to rabbinic prohibitions., do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written⁶¹Ex. 16:28., stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition⁶²This is the end of the parallel in Eruvin3.. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest⁶³This is making a wound, biblically forbidden under the category of slaughtering.? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart⁶⁴In Mishnah 1, he does not read “cutting its wart”.. That is because he thinks it⁶⁵Cutting the wart. Everybody agrees that biting off the wart is unprofessional, therefore does not create liability, and is only rabbinically forbidden. is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? ⁶⁶Quoted from Eruvin 10(7), Note 64. It is stated there that cutting the wart creates liability only if done professionally with a surgeon’s knife. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting⁶⁷Therefore not causing biblical liability. Babli Šabbat 94b., and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling⁶⁸Purifying a person impure by the impurity of the dead by sprinkling with water containing of the ashes of the Red Cow. In Second Temple times this was a public act (Mishnah Parah 11:4) not performed on the Sabbath. is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside⁶⁹If the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath and a person’s seventh day of impurity falls on that day, he may not be purified by sprinkling, but this is not biblically forbidden, and he has to celebrate his Pesaḥ on the 14th of Iyar. Cf. Mishnaiot 3,4. but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices⁷⁰Since R. Joshua’s argument is about the slaughterer, not the animal being slaughtered.? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering⁷¹Their discussion makes sense only if there is no difference whether one speaks about sacrifice or sacrificer. This confirms what R. Zeˋira said..

“A fire burn³⁷Lev. 13:24, in the rules of skin disease., I could think if it stays moist³⁸This is Maimonides’s interpretation (Negaˋim 7:8), based on the reading in Sifra מורדת. The reading here, מורדת could be interpreted, parallel to Arabic استمرّ “to stay unchanged”, that the wound does not heal., the verse says, if the burn was healed³⁹Lev. 13:27.. If the burn was healed, I could think until it becomes scar tissue, the verse says, a fire burn. How is that? It was partially healed; and so it says below, it is a burn scar;⁴⁰Lev. 13:28. until it forms a membrane in the thickness of a garlic peel.”⁴¹Sifra Tazria Pereq 7(3). And here he says so⁴²Why for skin disease does one include anything which minimally corresponds to the description in the verses, but for Pesaḥ one excludes everything but strict adherence to the prescribed manner.? Rebbi Eleazar says, there fire roasted, only fire roasted⁴³Ex. 12:8,9. Babli 95a., the verse repeated it to make it indispensable. But here, if the burn was healed, in any way. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there “law, teaching” makes it indispensable⁴⁴For the Pesaḥ “law” is written in Ex.12:43, “teaching” in 12:49. Any commandment labelled “law” or “teaching” must be kept to the letter; Babli Menaḥot 19a. For skin disease, “teaching” is mentioned the first time for the purification rites (Lev.14:43).. But here what do you have?

He who burns potter’s³⁵⁰Reading קדר “potter” for unexplained קרד. clay, softens glass³⁵¹Following G, reading Greek βῶλος, ἡ, “lump, clod”., melts pitch, melts ³⁵²This word is unexplained. In other contexts, מוסר is “one who delivers; informant”. Cf. Greek μίσυ, -υος and -εως, τό, “copper ore from Cyprus” (E. G.).מוסרין. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: One who melts down lead is liable because of cooking³⁵³Babli 106a, Yebamot 6b.. One who roasts, or who fries, who preserves by cooking, or by smoking, all these because of cooking. If somebody cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias, what³⁵⁴Cooking in hot springs may be forbidden rabbinically; it cannot cause liability. Babli 40b.? Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Ḥizqiah; for Ḥizqiah it was a problem: what if the Passover sacrifice was cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias³⁵⁵The question is quite difficult since the Passover must be slaughtered in the Temple and roasted and eaten nearby. The question is really if the Passover was treated by what biblically is not cooking before being roasted, whether this invalidates the sacrifice.? Two Amoraim, one said, it is forbidden; the other said, it is permitted. He who said, it is forbidden, do not eat from it raw, nor cooked in water³⁵⁶Ex. 12:9. The first part of the verse invalidates the sacrifice heated by hot water.. But he who said, it is permitted, but only roasted in fire, its head with its feet and its innards³⁵⁷The second part of the verse validates it if the formal preparation was roasting over an open fire..

There, we have stated¹²¹Mishnah Miqwaot 2:2. The Mishnah states that if a person was impure by biblical standards he can be purified only by immersion in a miqweh which is unquestionably valid. But if his impurity is rabbinic, immersion in a miqweh will purify him unless the miqweh is unquestionably invalid. R. Yose disagrees and holds that the principle of permanence of the status quo ante also applies to rabbinic impurity and the miqweh must be unquestionably valid.: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof¹²²If there are a group of items, the status of one is certain but that of the others is uncertain, one may assume that the other items share the status of the certain one unless proven otherwise (cf. Demay 2:1 2^nd of paragraph; Terumot 4:8 Note 83.) The Mishnah quotes the case that there be two miqwaot, one of them known to be invalid, while the other might be valid. If the person does not know in which of the two he immersed, R. Yose holds that it must have been the invalid one.. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]¹²³The text in parentheses is from L, that in brackets from G. The preceding argument is rejected, R. Yose applies the principle of permanence of the status quo ante even if nothing is certain and there is only one item.. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas¹⁷In other sources the name is אבטולמוס (Ptolemaios). testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified¹⁸Since the eruv is a rabbinic institution to allow carrying in or walking to places biblically permitted, in cases of doubt one has to permit..” And here you are saying so? There in his own name, but here in the name of five Elders. They wanted to say that he who says there “pure” says here “permitted”; he who says there “impure” says here “prohibited”. But even he who says there “impure” agrees here that it is permitted¹²⁴The two cases cannot be compared. The rules of impurity are biblical even if they are extended to cover cases of only rabbinic impurity. The rules of eruv are all rabbinic.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency¹²⁵He holds the opposite view. The Mishnah Miqwaot clearly distinguishes between biblical and rabbinic impurity and decrees leniency only for rabbinic cases; for him the rules of eruv teḥumim are all biblical; only eruv ḥaṣerot is rabbinical.. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction¹²⁶A generally recognized principle, cf. Ketubot 1:1 Note 21. But is eruv a word of the Torah? Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah¹²⁷Babli 17b. This proves at least that leaving one’s Sabbath domain is a biblical violation.. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation¹²⁸A Sabbath violation of one of the 39 forbidden categories of work is punishable by stoning if there are witnesses or divine extirpation otherwise. We do not find flogging as punishment for any Sabbath violation.? He said to him, is there not written¹²⁹Ex. 12:9., do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written¹³⁰Ex. 16:29. Even though this is the sequence of the sentences also in G, it is clear that the order has to be inverted. R. Jonathan first quoted Ex. 16:29 as proof that leaving one’s domain on the Sabbath is a biblical violation. Since no punishment is stated, the standard sanction of flogging applies. To this R. Ḥiyya replies that the standard sanction applies only to prohibitions introduced by לֹא, not to admonitions formulated with אַל. R. Jonathan retorts that this explanation is impossible since eating the Passover sacrifice raw is a punishable transgression forbidden by אַל., stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition¹³¹It is unresolved whether leaving one’s domain on the Sabbath is a transgression punishable in court. But the institution of eruv certainly is a rabbinic interpretation of the rules.. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person¹³²In the interpretation of biblical prohibitions, matters of doubt are treated differently when a person is involved who can be interrogated about the situation. Then the rules of resolution of doubts can be invoked only after the facts have been investigated. But if the person involved is deaf mute and unable to communicate by sign language the rules are applied immediately.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned¹³³The preceding makes sense if the eruv still exists. But if it was burned (as mentioned in the Mishnah) it should be impossible to invoke a principle of permanence of the status quo ante.? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi¹³⁴This is the text of L which probably is correct. In G: Rav. Hoshaia said: You must conclude that the boundaries of Sabbath domains are not clear in the words of the Torah. Rebbi Mana asked, it is accepted that 2’000 cubits is not clear¹³⁵The 2’000 cubits counted from the city walls are in imitation of the suburban space allotted to the levitic cities (Num. 35:5) where the Sabbath is not mentioned. The measure therefore has only rabbinic status. Babli 36a, Beṣah 36b. The Sadducee Damascus Document (CD A x) accepts a limit of 1’000 cubits (Num. 35:4) for humans and 2’000 cubits for animals (CD A xi) as biblical.. Are 4’000 cubits not clear? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The only clear case among all of them is the domain of twelve mil of the camp of Israel¹³⁶This is the general tradition that the diameter of the encampment of the Israelites as described in Num. 2 was 3 parsah (12 mil or 90 itinerant stadia): Ševiˋit 6:1 (Note 28), copied in Gittin 1:2 (Note 94), Babli Berakhot 54b, Eruvin 53b, Yoma 75b..

It is written: or cooking cooked in water²⁷⁶Ex. 12:9.. I not only have water, from where other fluids? The verse says, cooking cooked, in any way. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael²⁷⁷Who considers the combination of infinitive and perfect a form of common speech, not a duplication.? An argument de minore ad majus. Since for water which does not mask its taste you are saying it is forbidden, other fluids which mask its taste not so much more²⁷⁸Babli 41a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba, Parašah 6, pp. 20=-21/?

²⁶⁵This paragraph is copied from Šabbat 2, Notes 50–51; it starts with a question the reason of which is found only there. Here it is used to explain why the Mishnah requires the leftovers to be burned on the Sixteenth when from the verse one would have expected that it would be the 15^th. What did you see that you said so? You shall not leave any leftovers until the morning; what is left over from it until morning you shall burn in fire²⁶⁶Ex. 12:9.. After two mornings, one the morning of the (14^th) and the other the morning of the (15^th)²⁶⁷The correct version is in K and Šabbat,15^th and 16^th.. And it is written²⁶⁸Lev.7:17., what is left of the well-being sacrifice should be burned on the third day.

The Passover sacrifice you return whole, you do not return it carved⁴²⁰Only the whole animal is a group affair; once individual portions are cut they must follow the rules of common food.. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Because of its invalidity⁴²¹This is a new subject. While in general a dish cooked as Ben Derosai’s food can be returned and reheated, for the Passover this is forbidden; if the Passover sacrifice is roasted on Friday afternoon it must be well done overall.. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. You cannot eat it for it is written⁴²²Ex. 12:9., do not eat from it raw. You cannot roast it for he should not be roasting it on the Sabbath. If you are telling him that he may do it, he will not roast it completely when it still is daylight. Since you tell him that it is prohibited, he will roast it completely when it is still daylight⁴²³The previous permission (Note 413) to return the Passover sacrifice is given only for the uncut body; once a piece has been cut to check whether it was well done it cannot be returned. This forces one to finish the roasting process before cutting anything.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose⁴²⁴The Tanna, son of R. Yose ben Ḥalafta. His question was answered in the negative by the late Amoraim just quoted. asked, if he roasted it whole and carved it up, may he go back and heat it?