Kapłańska 17:3 Odniesienia do Talmudu: Jerusalem Talmud Terumot & Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

“The Gentile’s heave creates dema‘ and one is obligated to a fifth^3,Cf. Mishnah 6:4 and Chapter 1, Note 71. In the interpretation of Maimonides (Terumot 5:22), the last sentence refers both to wine and to melons.⁹⁵Since Lev. 22:25 implies that dedication by a Gentile is a meritorious action, it follows that all stringencies of dedications have to be applied. for it, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation.” Rebbi Zeïra said, I said this before Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree only for the heave of his threshing floor. But for a Gentile who bought the produce of a Jew¹⁰¹After it was harvested. R. Simeon teaches that real estate in the Land of Israel held by Gentiles is free from all obligations of the Land, cf. Peah Chapter 4, Note 129, Demay Chapter 5, Note 102., even Rebbi Simeon will agree. Rebbi Abbahu said to me in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the disagreement is about the latter case. It is difficult according to Rebbi Simeon, does he free his ṭevel from the Torah and you say so¹⁰²If the Gentile bought produce after threshing, obligated for heave but before heave was taken, then his heave will free the grain for consumption by Jews. Since his heave has all the force of heave given by a Jew, why should it not be subject to all rules of heave?? But are sacrifices¹⁰³Sacrifices given to the Temple by Gentiles are accepted by biblical law, cf. Note 93. not from the Torah, and nevertheless Rebbi Simeon frees, as we have stated there¹⁰⁴Mishnah Zebaḥim 4:5, and similarly Tosephta Zebaḥim 5:6. In all these texts, R. Simeon is quoted as freeing from punishment and R. Yose as declaring guilty. This is also a necessary reading here since the argument is that R. Simeon considers the Gentile’s sacrifice to be a genuine sacrifice acceptable to Heaven but not subject to any of the restrictions imposed on Jewish sacrifices; in parallel, the Gentile’s heave is heave but subject to its rules. (In some Mishnah mss. and editions, “R. Simeon” is replaced by “R. Meїr.”) Maimonides, both in his Commentary and his Code (Pesule Hammuqdašim 18:24) follows R. Simeon, against the rule that R. Yose prevails over R. Simeon. As R. Aqiba Eiger points out, the Babli quotes two instances (Zebaḥim 116b, Menaḥot109b) of actual sacrifices performed for Gentiles outside the Land. Since the action of a respected authority, in this case Rava, the unquestioned leader of his generation, overrides all decision rules, Maimonides is justified.: “Sacrifices of Gentiles are not subject to piggul¹⁰⁵A sacrifice brought with the intent of eating it at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place, a deadly sin (Lev. 7:18, 19:7)., left-overs¹⁰⁶Leftovers from sacrificial meat remaining after the allotted time, whose consumption is sinful., and impurity and one who slaughters them outside¹⁰⁷Sacrificed outside the Temple, a prohibition restricted to “the Children of Israel”, Lev. 17:3. is free [from punishment], the words of Rebbi Yose, but Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty.” They wanted to say that they disagree only about the fifth but not about dema‘. They found stated: It is all the same.

HALAKHAH: “A congenital castrate priest,” etc. It was stated: He enables her to eat breast and thigh²²⁸The part of breast and right front thigh from a well-being offering which has to be given to the Cohen and is eaten by him and his family; Lev. 7:34. In the interpretation of the Babli, 81a, “breast and thigh” stands for all gifts to the Cohen which are biblical; “heave” is today’s heave which is only a rabbinical obligation. The following discussion in the Yerushalmi shows that this cannot be the Yerushalmi’s interpretation.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he enables her for heave but not for breast and thigh²²⁹In the Babli, 81a, this position is ascribed to R. Simeon ben Laqish, the opposite statement to R. Joḥanan. Since practice in general follows R. Joḥanan, the two Talmudim take opposite positions in practice. According to the Babli, the entire discussion is about the hermaphrodite Cohen, not the one born without testicles. It seems from the second paragraph following that the Yerushalmi also has to be read in this sense.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, what means “there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter”? He said to him, open your mouth and receive. Rebbi Mana said, he made fun of him. Rebbi Abun said, he gave him an example. ²³⁰Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 17(5). R. Simeon ben Laqish intimates that there may be more (amoraic) arguments in the vein of the tannaitic statement to be quoted.“Since she eats heave that never was within the reach of an Israel, is it not logical that she should eat breast and thigh that were within the reach of Israel²³¹It is not clear what the argument is. R. Abraham ben David in his commentary to Sifra gives two possible explanations. (1) Before the sin of the Golden Calf, first-borns exercised the priestly functions. (2) In the obligatory sacrifices of Passover and animal tithes, the Cohen gets nothing. (In profane slaughter he should get some other parts, Deut. 18:3. During the stay in the desert, profane slaughter was forbidden, Lev. 17:3–4). Since this shows that there is nothing intrinsic in the nature of a sacrifice which requires a part to be given to the Cohen, the Cohen’s parts are in some sense robbed from the Israel and given to the Cohen.? Breast and thigh were within the reach of Israel but when they became guilty these were taken from them and given to the priests. I could think, since these were taken from them when they incurred guilt, so they would be given back to them when they acquire merit. The verse²³²Lev.7:34. says, ‘I gave them to Aaron and his sons for an eternal law;’ since a gift is not returned, so these are not returned.”