Talmud do Liczb 15:49

HALAKHAH: ⁶This and the next paragraphs are also in Pesaḥim 2:4 (fol. 29b).“Five kinds are subject to ḥallah”, etc. It is written (Num. 15:19): “It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave⁷This is ḥallah which follows the rules of heave. for the Eternal.” I could think that everything⁸Since לחם can also mean “food”, cf. Gen. 47:12. is subject to ḥallah; the verse says “of the bread” and not all bread. If “of the bread” and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley⁹Since bread is usually made from these.. From where spelt, foxtail, and oats? The verse says (Num. 15:20,21) “the first of your dough,¹⁰The expression is emphasized by repetition. One has to include every grain usable for making dough.” this includes. Does it include everything¹¹According to this argument, rice and millet for example should also be included.? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon¹²This must be R. Simeon ben Laqish. R. Yose asserts that R. Ismael accepted the inference as valid; “dough” includes every bread-dough made from grains similar to the bread grains wheat and barley.: Rebbi Ismael stated this.

HALAKHAH: ⁶This and the next paragraphs are also in Pesaḥim 2:4 (fol. 29b).“Five kinds are subject to ḥallah”, etc. It is written (Num. 15:19): “It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave⁷This is ḥallah which follows the rules of heave. for the Eternal.” I could think that everything⁸Since לחם can also mean “food”, cf. Gen. 47:12. is subject to ḥallah; the verse says “of the bread” and not all bread. If “of the bread” and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley⁹Since bread is usually made from these.. From where spelt, foxtail, and oats? The verse says (Num. 15:20,21) “the first of your dough,¹⁰The expression is emphasized by repetition. One has to include every grain usable for making dough.” this includes. Does it include everything¹¹According to this argument, rice and millet for example should also be included.? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon¹²This must be R. Simeon ben Laqish. R. Yose asserts that R. Ismael accepted the inference as valid; “dough” includes every bread-dough made from grains similar to the bread grains wheat and barley.: Rebbi Ismael stated this.

HALAKHAH: ⁶This and the next paragraphs are also in Pesaḥim 2:4 (fol. 29b).“Five kinds are subject to ḥallah”, etc. It is written (Num. 15:19): “It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave⁷This is ḥallah which follows the rules of heave. for the Eternal.” I could think that everything⁸Since לחם can also mean “food”, cf. Gen. 47:12. is subject to ḥallah; the verse says “of the bread” and not all bread. If “of the bread” and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley⁹Since bread is usually made from these.. From where spelt, foxtail, and oats? The verse says (Num. 15:20,21) “the first of your dough,¹⁰The expression is emphasized by repetition. One has to include every grain usable for making dough.” this includes. Does it include everything¹¹According to this argument, rice and millet for example should also be included.? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon¹²This must be R. Simeon ben Laqish. R. Yose asserts that R. Ismael accepted the inference as valid; “dough” includes every bread-dough made from grains similar to the bread grains wheat and barley.: Rebbi Ismael stated this.

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeïra¹⁴The son of R. Zeïra who had been a baraita teacher in his father’s academy. The father of R. Mana was R. Jonah., but my father said it in the name of Rebbi Ismael¹⁵A similar text Sifry Num. 110. As regards Passover only, Babli Pesaḥim 35a, Mekhilta deR. Ismael Bo Chap. 8, 17; Sifry Num. 146.: “Bread” is mentioned for Passover¹⁶Deut. 16:2. and “bread” is mentioned for ḥallah¹⁷Num. 15:19.. Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either maẓẓah or leavened, bread mentioned for ḥallah must be something that can be either maẓẓah or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either maẓẓah or leavened; all others cannot be maẓẓah¹⁸Rice cakes, while unleavened, cannot be called maẓẓah since rice bread (not containing gluten) does not qualify as leavened bread. If left standing with leavening it will not rise but spoil. or leavened but would spoil.

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says after it was made into separate cuttings¹⁴Tosephta 1:12, speaking of a convert who accepts Judaism while making a dough.. What is Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra’s reason? (Num. 15:20) “You shall lift it like the heave of the threshing floor.” Since heave of the threshing floor is taken after the end of processing, so this also is taken after the end of processing. Then after it was baked? Rebbi Mattaniah: It is compared to heave only for doughmaking¹⁵Since Num. 15:20 defines ḥallah as “start of your doughs” and not “start of your breads”..

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since when she starts pouring the water it is (Num. 15:20) “the beginnining of your doughs,” as it was stated²⁰The Rome ms. reads תני instead of דתני. In that case, the Tosephta is not quoted by R. Joḥanan to bolster his case but by the editors in order to question his argument. Then one should read “… your doughs.” It was stated …: ²¹Tosephta Terumot5:15, quoted in Demay 7:9, Note 137.Ṭevel tithe that was mixed with profane food makes it forbidden²²To laymen. in the minutest amount. If it can be taken care of from another place, one gives in proportion²³Since heave of the tithe does not have to be earmarked, if the Levite has other tithe from which heave of the tithe was not yet taken, he can include the heave for the mixed tithe in the heave he gives from his other tithe and make the mixture profane.. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says he should give a name to the heave of the tithe and lift it by 101²⁴Heave cannot be removed unless declared as such, even if only implicitly by saying, for example: Heave shall be in the Northern part of the grain heap. “Lifting” a replacement of the impure heave was explained in Terumot 4, Note 62..” Rebbi Jacob from Jabul²⁵An Amora of the second generation, living near Bet Shean. in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. Rebbi Joḥanan said, what they taught the Cohanot²⁶Wives or unmarried daughters of Cohanim. Since they had to watch over purity in their homes, they were called to take ḥallah in purity for lay wives. implies that practice does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh. What did they teach the Cohanot? “This is ḥallah for this dough, and the sour dough in it, for the flour contained in it, and for the flat bread under it²⁷From the text of the declaration it is clear that ḥallah is taken at the very first moment, when there still is some flour not moistened, the sour dough not thoroughly worked in, and some pieces being separated. Flatbread in Arabic is قُرص.. If all these are counted together the amount in my hand shall be dedicated as ḥallah except what might be impure in it²⁸If practice would follow R. Eleazar ben Arakh, the Cohenet should lift an amount corresponding to the impurity and then take pure ḥallah..” She says, except what might be impure! Could it not be lifted by 101? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Samuel from Cappadocia and one of the rabbis²⁹He said the same as R. Samuel from Cappadocia but did not mention the latter’s name., one said in one case there is enough to lift³⁰Then one follows R. Eleazar ben Arakh., in the other case there is not enough to lift³¹Then one formulates the declaration following the Cohanot.; since it would have been expected to be lifted it is as if care might be taken of it from another place³²One has to follow the Cohanot since in this case even R. Eleazar ben Arakh would not permit taking from the dough without their special declaration..

³⁸Babli 99a, Sifry Num. 112. It is written³⁹Num. 15:31.: For he showed contempt for the Eternal’s Word. Not only if he was contemptuous of the teachings of the Torah, from where if he denied one verse, one Aramaic expression, one argument de minore ad majus? The verse says, His command he violated. One verse, Lotan’s sister was Timna`⁴⁰Gen. 36:22; cf. Gen. rabba 82(15).. One Aramaic expression, Laban called it Yegar Sahadu̅ta̅⁴¹Gen. 31:47. In Gen. rabba 72(12) the expression is characterized as Syriac.. One argument de minore ad majus: For Cain would be avenged sevenfold, etc.⁴²Gen. 4:24. While Lemekh’s song violates the formal rules of an argument de minore ad majus, the verse is Divine approval of poetry..

MISHNAH: The following are “between the sections”: between the first benediction and the second, between the second and Shema‘, between Shema‘ and (Deut. 11:13) “it shall be when you will really listen”, between “it shall be when you will really listen” and (Num. 15:37) “the Eternal spoke”. Between “the Eternal spoke” and “true and outstanding⁷⁷The benediction after Shema‘, starting with a series of epithets of the Torah.”. Rebbi Yehudah said, between “the Eternal spoke” and “true and outstanding” one may not interrupt.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: Between its¹⁴⁴“It” is the צצית, the fringes of the garment. We shall see later that the third section of the Shema‘, dealing with the obligation of tzitzit, was in Israel recited in abridged form during evening prayers. Hence, the tzitzit characterized the morning prayers. Each tzitzit contained three strands of white thread with one of tĕkhēlet. dark blue and its white. What is the reason of the Rabbis? (Num. 15:39) “You shall see it”¹⁴⁵I. e., the תכלת thread among the white threads of the tzitzit., from what is close to it. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? “You shall see it”, that it should be recognizable among colors¹⁴⁶That תכלת should be recognized not only as a color, but as its specific color..

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Levi said⁷⁸In the parallel in the Babli (14a), the explanation is by R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yoḥanan. Since Rebbi Levi was preacher in the Yeshivah of Rebbi Yoḥanan, the explanation originated in that Yeshivah. In addition, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan in the Babli declares that the practice follows Rebbi Yehudah; this decision is missing in the Yerushalmi and, hence, it seems that in Israel one used to follow the majority opinion that an interruption is permitted between the last words of the Shema‘ and “true”. Hence, the question asked in the Babli, whether after reciting “the Eternal, your God. True!” one stops and starts again “true and outstanding”, is irrelevant for the Yerushalmi. The question in the Babli is whether Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the first Tanna in principle, that ‘between “the Eternal spoke” and “true and outstanding” ’ there is no interruption allowed or whether he simply moves the end of technical Shema‘ by one word and then allows the regular interruptions there., the reason of Rebbi Yehudah: (Num. 15:41) “I am the Eternal, your God⁷⁹These are the concluding words of Shema‘.”, and it is written (Jer. 10:10) “But the Eternal is the true God”.

“If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated.” Following Rebbi Ismael who said all “comings”⁵⁶Any command introduced by the words “it shall be when you come into the Land” applies only after the distribution of the Land to the tribes which by rabbinic tradition was 14 years after the crossing of the Jordan, cf. Seder Olam Chap. 11 (in the author’s edition, Northvale NJ 1998, Notes 3–5). Cf. Ševi‘it 6, Note 10, Ḥallah 2:1, Note 12. The statement of R. Ismael is discussed at length in Babli Qiddušin 37a–38a; it is also quoted in Yerushalmi Soṭah 7:4 (fol. 21c), 9:1 (fol. 23c). said in the Torah refer to after 14 years, seven when they conquered and seven when they distributed? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Ismael agrees in the cases of ḥallah and ‘orlah. It was also stated thus: (Num. 15:18)⁵⁷This argument, directly attributed to R. Ismael in Sifry Šelaḥ #110, applies only to ḥallah where the usual form כבאכם is used. The rules for ‘orlah start: וכי תבאו אל הארץ but it does not say וירשתם וישבתם בה “after you inherited and settled there.” This kind of argument is applicable only to the Babylonian version which insists not on “coming” but on “settling”. In Sifra (loc. cit. N. 53), the immediate obligation of ‘orlah after the crossing of the Jordan, whether planting was done by Jew or Gentile, is deduced from Lev. 19:23: “When you come into the Land and plant any food-tree.” “At your coming,” because the verse changed its language, the Sages changed⁵⁸This seems to imply that Sadducee interpretation was different. the terms of obligation.” Rebbi Jonah asked: Rebbi Ismael is inconsistent. There, he says “being” and “getting” is the same⁵⁹In the chapter on dedications, Lev. 27:9 ff., the redemption of a house is described by והיה לו “it shall be his”, whereas the redemption of a field is וקם לו “it shall be confirmed for him”. The rules are identical even though the expressions are different. The corresponding baraitot in Sifra Beḥuqqotai Pereq 10 are anonymous., “breaking” and “smashing” is the same⁶⁰Two parallel synonymous expressions in Deut. 12:3. In this case, Sifry Deut. #61 disagrees and notes that “smashing” is more than “breaking”., “redemption” and “deliverance” is the same⁶¹Lev. 27:28,29; two parallel verses., and here he takes note of a change in expression!

If it is so, what does the Day of Atonement help him⁹⁵This refers to the second part of the Mishnah. If at some time the impurity was known, the eventual obligation of a sacrifice is not eliminated by the day of Atonement. Then what is the effect of this day?? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, the Day of Atonement acts for him as a suspended reparation sacrifice. In he died before the day of Atonement, the sin is in her⁹⁶Num. 15:31. The feminine pronoun refers to נֶפֶשׁ “the breathing person”.. After the day of Atonement it already was atoned for⁹⁷Even though an eventual obligation remains for the living person, the guilt has been atoned for..

HALAKHAH: And following Ben Azzai, why the [poor]⁷⁶Corrector’s addition from B. sinner? He brought his log with him, and following the rabbis he brings a lamb⁷⁷As explained in Note 75.. What are the libations for a mother sheep⁷⁸Since there is a difference between the libations needed for a young male sheep and those for an adult male, why does one not make the same distinction for females?? Since we stated, “ ‘lamb’ serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female,” this implies that the libations of a mother sheep are like the libations of a lamb. It is written⁷⁹Num. 15:11., so you shall do for one bull, or for one ram, or an animal from sheep or goats.⁸⁰Sifry Num.107. This tells that He did not differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Since one could argue, an animal from the flock needs libations, a bovine animal needs libations. Since we find that He distinguished between the libations for a sheep and the libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. The verse says, so you shall do for one bull; this implies that He did not distinguish between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Why was it said, or for a ram? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a yearling and libations for a two-year old, so we should differentiate between libations for a two-years old and a three-years old. The verse says, or for one ram. Why was it said, or for an animal from sheep? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a young female sheep and libations for a mother sheep. The verse says, or for an animal from sheep. Why was it said, or a goat? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a kid goat and libations for a bellwether. The verse says, or for a goat, it compared the smallest kid goat to the largest bellwether⁸¹The distinction by age applicable to sheep is not applicable to goats.. Since one needs three log, so the other needs three log.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Hoshaiah asked Cahana: From where that these are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes? He said to him, do not tell me (Num. 15:19): “you shall lift”; (v. 20) “so you shall lift.”¹¹⁹“It shall be when you eat from the bread of the Land, you shall lift a heave for the Eternal. The first of your doughs, ḥallah you shall lift as heave, as the heave of the threshing floor so you shall lift it.” At first glance, the second verse seems to imply that anything exempt from great heave should be exempt from ḥallah. Cahana assumes that R. Hoshaiah’s question was, why should the items enumerated in the Mishnah ever be subject to ḥallah? He came back and said, from 14 [years]¹²⁰The years of conquest and distribution under Joshua, when they ate from the bread of the Land but did not harvest themselves. Cf. Seder Olam11 [in the author’s edition (Northvale NJ 1998), pp. 116–117, Note 2]; ‘Orlah1:2, Note 55.. Just as in the 14 years they were subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes, so these are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Hoshaiah asked Cahana: From where that these are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes? He said to him, do not tell me (Num. 15:19): “you shall lift”; (v. 20) “so you shall lift.”¹¹⁹“It shall be when you eat from the bread of the Land, you shall lift a heave for the Eternal. The first of your doughs, ḥallah you shall lift as heave, as the heave of the threshing floor so you shall lift it.” At first glance, the second verse seems to imply that anything exempt from great heave should be exempt from ḥallah. Cahana assumes that R. Hoshaiah’s question was, why should the items enumerated in the Mishnah ever be subject to ḥallah? He came back and said, from 14 [years]¹²⁰The years of conquest and distribution under Joshua, when they ate from the bread of the Land but did not harvest themselves. Cf. Seder Olam11 [in the author’s edition (Northvale NJ 1998), pp. 116–117, Note 2]; ‘Orlah1:2, Note 55.. Just as in the 14 years they were subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes, so these are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes.

HALAKHAH: And following Ben Azzai, why the [poor]⁷⁶Corrector’s addition from B. sinner? He brought his log with him, and following the rabbis he brings a lamb⁷⁷As explained in Note 75.. What are the libations for a mother sheep⁷⁸Since there is a difference between the libations needed for a young male sheep and those for an adult male, why does one not make the same distinction for females?? Since we stated, “ ‘lamb’ serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female,” this implies that the libations of a mother sheep are like the libations of a lamb. It is written⁷⁹Num. 15:11., so you shall do for one bull, or for one ram, or an animal from sheep or goats.⁸⁰Sifry Num.107. This tells that He did not differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Since one could argue, an animal from the flock needs libations, a bovine animal needs libations. Since we find that He distinguished between the libations for a sheep and the libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. The verse says, so you shall do for one bull; this implies that He did not distinguish between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Why was it said, or for a ram? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a yearling and libations for a two-year old, so we should differentiate between libations for a two-years old and a three-years old. The verse says, or for one ram. Why was it said, or for an animal from sheep? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a young female sheep and libations for a mother sheep. The verse says, or for an animal from sheep. Why was it said, or a goat? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a kid goat and libations for a bellwether. The verse says, or for a goat, it compared the smallest kid goat to the largest bellwether⁸¹The distinction by age applicable to sheep is not applicable to goats.. Since one needs three log, so the other needs three log.

HALAKHAH: And following Ben Azzai, why the [poor]⁷⁶Corrector’s addition from B. sinner? He brought his log with him, and following the rabbis he brings a lamb⁷⁷As explained in Note 75.. What are the libations for a mother sheep⁷⁸Since there is a difference between the libations needed for a young male sheep and those for an adult male, why does one not make the same distinction for females?? Since we stated, “ ‘lamb’ serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female,” this implies that the libations of a mother sheep are like the libations of a lamb. It is written⁷⁹Num. 15:11., so you shall do for one bull, or for one ram, or an animal from sheep or goats.⁸⁰Sifry Num.107. This tells that He did not differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Since one could argue, an animal from the flock needs libations, a bovine animal needs libations. Since we find that He distinguished between the libations for a sheep and the libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. The verse says, so you shall do for one bull; this implies that He did not distinguish between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Why was it said, or for a ram? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a yearling and libations for a two-year old, so we should differentiate between libations for a two-years old and a three-years old. The verse says, or for one ram. Why was it said, or for an animal from sheep? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a young female sheep and libations for a mother sheep. The verse says, or for an animal from sheep. Why was it said, or a goat? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a kid goat and libations for a bellwether. The verse says, or for a goat, it compared the smallest kid goat to the largest bellwether⁸¹The distinction by age applicable to sheep is not applicable to goats.. Since one needs three log, so the other needs three log.

“And grain not yet one-third ripe”. What is the rabbis’ reason? “Bread” is mentioned in connection with Passover and “bread” is mentioned in connection with ḥallah. “Bread” mentioned in connection with Passover includes all that may be maẓẓah or leavened, [therefore] also “bread” mentioned in connection with ḥallah includes all that may be maẓẓah or leavened^15–18118According to the majority opinion, dough made from flour of green kernels, not yet one-third ripe, can become leavened and therefore is subject to ḥallah.; cf. Notes 15–20.. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reasoning? (Num. 15:20) “You shall lift it like heave from the threshing floor.” Since heave from the threshing floor is only from produce at least one-third ripe¹⁴²Cf. Ma‘serot 1:3, Note 78., that also is only from produce at least one-third ripe. Does Rebbi Eleazar not have “bread, bread¹⁴³If there is an established tradition that the word “bread” means the same in both cases, R. Eleazar also must agree that the same standard applies in both cases.”? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It¹⁴⁴Bread or dough made from flour milled from grain not yet one-third ripe. is not subject to ḥallah and nobody can use it to fulfill his duty on Passover.

What are the rules “in between”¹⁵⁸In between obligations, if dough is made from flour that is not totally profane.? Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In between” follows the rules of the first state¹⁵⁹All prior obligations also fall on the ḥallah taken from the dough.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In between” follows the rules of the final state. What means “in between”? ¹⁶⁰Cf. Demay 5:1, Notes 23 ff.; Tosephta Terumot 4:10. If somebody makes dough from ṭevel, its ḥallah is obligated for heave and its heave for ḥallah. From where that ḥallah is obligated for heave? Rebbi Isaac in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Martha in the name of Rav: (Num. 15:20) “Ḥallah you shall lift heave,” from ḥallah you shall lift heave. From where that heave is subject to ḥallah? From our difficulty to explain that verse, the one where it is written: “Beginning … you shall lift ḥallah”¹⁶¹The full verses read: “The beginning of your doughs, ḥallah you shall lift heave; like heave of the barn, so you shall lift it. From the beginning of your doughs you shall give a heave to the Eternal, for your generations.” The second verse states that ḥallah is due as a heave from the moment the kneading of the dough starts. But then the first “beginning” is redundant; it is taken to refer to actual heave which is called “beginning” in Num. 18:12. Then the second clause of the first verse is read not “ḥallah you shall lift [as] heave” but “[from] ḥallah you shall lift heave.”.

MISHNAH: Indeterminate oaths are interpreted restrictively and explicit ones liberally. How is this? If one said, this is for me like salted meat⁴⁷I. e., a sacrifice (Lev. 2:13)., like libation wine⁴⁸Num. 15:1–13., if his intent was for Heaven, he is forbidden, if for idolatry, he is permitted⁴⁹Since everything destined for idolatrous worship is forbidden for any use, it cannot become qorbān., if indeterminate⁵⁰If the person making the vow had nothing special in mind, his words have to be interpreted as referring to an instance which makes his vow valid. he is forbidden. This is for me like a ban, if by a ban for Heaven⁵¹A gift to the Temple which is forbidden for any use until redeemed from the Temple treasury., he is forbidden, if priest’s⁵²Bans given to priests become their fully profane private property, not restricted in any way. A referral to such bans cannot prohibit., he is permitted, if indeterminate he is forbidden. This is for me like tithe, if animal tithe, he is forbidden⁵³Animal tithe is automatically a sacrifice which does not need dedication (Lev. 27:32); it is qorbān., if from grain, he is permitted⁵⁴Tithe from which its heave was separated is totally profane in the Levite’s hand., if indeterminate he is forbidden. This is for me like heave, if Temple heave⁵⁵The half-šeqel yearly Temple tax which was used to buy public sacrifices; cf. Mishnah Šeqalim 3:1., he is forbidden, if heave from the threshing floor, he is permitted⁵⁶Since heave is private property of the receiving Cohen; cf. Note 8., if indeterminate he is forbidden, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, indeterminate heave in Judea is prohibited, in Galilee permitted, since Galileans do not know of Temple heave⁵⁷The Temple tax there was never known as “Temple heave” but as “half-šeqel.. Indeterminate bans in Judea are permitted, in Galilee prohibited, since Galileans do not know of priest’s bans⁵⁸They know bans only as expression of total prohibitions for everybody..

HALAKHAH: ¹⁸⁷This and the the following paragraphs up to Note 207 are also in Ḥallah 1:1, Notes 6–21, ח. It is written¹⁸⁸Num. 15:19.: It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave¹⁸⁹This is ḥallah which follows the rules of heave.for the Eternal. I could think that everything¹⁹⁰Since לֶחֶם also means food in general. is subject to ḥallah; the verse says of the bread but not all bread¹⁹¹Which are the main bread grains.. If of the bread and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley¹⁹²Num. 15:20, 21.? From where the other kinds? The verse says the first of your dough¹⁹²Num. 15:20, 21., this includes¹⁹³Not only rye, spelt, and fox grain but also rice and millet would be included.. Does it include everything? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon:¹⁹⁴This must be R. Simeon ben Laqish. R. Yose asserts that R. Ismael accepted the inference as valid; “dough” includes every bread-dough made from grains similar to wheat and barley. R. Aqiba’s interpretation of these verses is reported in Sifry Num. 110. Rebbi Ismael stated this. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, in the name of Rebbi Ismael¹⁹⁵Confirmed this tradition..

HALAKHAH: ¹⁸⁷This and the the following paragraphs up to Note 207 are also in Ḥallah 1:1, Notes 6–21, ח. It is written¹⁸⁸Num. 15:19.: It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave¹⁸⁹This is ḥallah which follows the rules of heave.for the Eternal. I could think that everything¹⁹⁰Since לֶחֶם also means food in general. is subject to ḥallah; the verse says of the bread but not all bread¹⁹¹Which are the main bread grains.. If of the bread and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley¹⁹²Num. 15:20, 21.? From where the other kinds? The verse says the first of your dough¹⁹²Num. 15:20, 21., this includes¹⁹³Not only rye, spelt, and fox grain but also rice and millet would be included.. Does it include everything? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon:¹⁹⁴This must be R. Simeon ben Laqish. R. Yose asserts that R. Ismael accepted the inference as valid; “dough” includes every bread-dough made from grains similar to wheat and barley. R. Aqiba’s interpretation of these verses is reported in Sifry Num. 110. Rebbi Ismael stated this. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, in the name of Rebbi Ismael¹⁹⁵Confirmed this tradition..

HALAKHAH: ¹⁸⁷This and the the following paragraphs up to Note 207 are also in Ḥallah 1:1, Notes 6–21, ח. It is written¹⁸⁸Num. 15:19.: It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave¹⁸⁹This is ḥallah which follows the rules of heave.for the Eternal. I could think that everything¹⁹⁰Since לֶחֶם also means food in general. is subject to ḥallah; the verse says of the bread but not all bread¹⁹¹Which are the main bread grains.. If of the bread and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley¹⁹²Num. 15:20, 21.? From where the other kinds? The verse says the first of your dough¹⁹²Num. 15:20, 21., this includes¹⁹³Not only rye, spelt, and fox grain but also rice and millet would be included.. Does it include everything? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon:¹⁹⁴This must be R. Simeon ben Laqish. R. Yose asserts that R. Ismael accepted the inference as valid; “dough” includes every bread-dough made from grains similar to wheat and barley. R. Aqiba’s interpretation of these verses is reported in Sifry Num. 110. Rebbi Ismael stated this. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, in the name of Rebbi Ismael¹⁹⁵Confirmed this tradition..

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled but one of them knew that it was in error,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]⁷¹The ms. text, בלוד, “at Lydda” makes no sense since the High Court must sit in the ashlar hall on the Temple Mount. One has to read with B בלבד “only”. The president of the Court is the only one for whom no substitute can be found.. It is written¹²²Num. 15:24, detailing the rules governing the sacrifice of a goat if the Court unintentionally permitted idolatry. This is taken as biblical proof that the Court cannot rule in the absence of its president.: If from the eyes of the congregation, from him who is appointed as eyes of the congregation. It is written¹²³Num. 11:16, the appointment of the 70 Elders, the paradigm for the High Court. Babli 4b, they shall stand there with you. Just as you are neither proselyte, nor Gibeonite, nor a bastard¹²⁴As son of a man and his aunt, Moses would have been a bastard if his parents had married after the promulgation of Torah laws.. Proselytes are reasonable, but bastards? does the court appoints bastards? Rav Ḥuna said, when they breached the rules and appointed¹²⁵The exclusion of proselytes, Gibeonites, and bastards is strongly recommended but a breach does not invalidate the appointment.. Rebbi Ḥanania, Rebbi Mana. One said, as part of the Seventy; the other said, apart from the Seventy¹²⁶He holds that the exclusion is prescriptive; an appointment would be invalid.. He who said, apart from the Seventy, is understandable. But he who said, as part of the Seventy, therefore not apart from the Seventy? Since he is not suitable for ordination, he is considered like a stone¹²⁷If their vote cannot be counted, then automatically not all who are present are voting; therefore the false ruling will never trigger the obligation of a sacrifice..

Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeˋira¹⁹⁶The son of R. Zeˋ ira who had been a baraita teacher in his father’s academy. (who said, I) [my father] said in the name of Rebbi Ismael¹⁹⁷A similar text Sifry Num. 110. As regards Passover only, Babli Pesaḥim 35a, Mekhilta deR. Ismael Bo Chap. 8, 17; Sifry Num. 146.: “Bread” is mentioned for Passover¹⁹⁸Deut. 16:2. and “bread” is mentioned for ḥallah¹⁹⁹Num. 15:19.. Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either mazzah or leavened, bread mentioned for ḥallah must be something that can be either mazzah or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either mazzah or leavened; all others cannot be mazzah²⁰⁰Rice cakes, while unleavened, cannot be called mazzah since rice bread (not containing gluten) does not quality as leavened bread. If left standing with leavening it will not rise but spoil. or leavened but would spoil.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts⁷⁶In R. Eleazar’s opinion, R. Aqiba accepts Mishnah 3:3 without change. R. Eliahu Fulda notes that “layman” is mentioned only as contrast to “Temple”. This seems to contradict the statements in Halakhah 2:1, Notes 5–6.. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt⁷⁷Shaping the heap is the end of grain processing, which triggers the obligation of heave and tithes. R. Aqiba states in Mishnah Menaḥot 10:4 that leftover flour made by Temple personnel from barley for the ‘omer offering is obligated for tithes. Since the cut grain has to be cleaned before milling, that cleaning process is the equivalent of shaping the heap in a regular harvest. The anonymous majority holds everywhere that all Temple grain is exempt from heave and tithes.
Everybody in that Mishnah agrees that dough made from this flour is subject to ḥallah.. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt⁷⁸This argument is brought without a dissenting voice in Babli Menaḥot 67a.. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power⁷⁹The Babli, Menaḥot 67a, holds that this is not biblical but purely rabbinic.? There is a difference since it is written (Lev.27:30): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.⁸⁰The ethnicity of the farmer is not mentioned. The questioner, and the rabbis quoted in the last sentence, must hold with R. Meïr that possession by a Gentile does not remove the obligations imposed on produce of the Land; cf. Peah 4, Notes 129–131.” But is here⁸¹In the laws of ḥallah. not written (Num. 15:19): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread⁸²If this מ is partitive, there is no reason why in Lev. 27:30 it cannot be partitive also. The argument of R. Jonah is rejected.. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple⁸³It is implied that in the matter of grain grown by a Gentile in the Land, R. Meïr reports the position of R. Aqiba.
A Genizah text reads רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֵין גִּילְגּוּל פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֵין הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ. “Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Temple’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple”. This may be the better text..

What is the reason of Rebbi Ismael? (Deut. 18:4) “The beginning of your grain,” it is sufficient for the beginning to be like the grain⁵⁸More than 50% cannot be called “beginning”.. From where that he did not do anything unless he left some remainder? (Num. 15:21) “From the beginning”, not all the beginning⁵⁹Prefix מ in talmudic interpretation is partitive; Sifry Num. 110..

“The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice and those needed by the nazir, if he made them for himself they are exempt,” for it is written¹⁹⁷Num. 15:20. The sentence as addressed to the people, not to the priests of he Temple all whose food is dedicated. “the first of your baking troughs;” “to sell on the market he is obligated”, it does not depend on his intention but on that of his customers. Maybe he will find a customer; therefore, it becomes ṭevel immediately¹⁹⁸The same argument is found in Ma‘serot 1:5, cf. there, Note 115, 125..

MISHNAH: How much time does one have to return it⁹⁵The defective coin which fails the standards of Mishnah 4.? In walled cities⁹⁶Greek χάραξ, χάρακος “palisade”. until one can show it to a banker, in villages until Sabbath eve. If he recognizes it, he should take it back even after twelve months, but he has only a complaint against him⁹⁷If the person who handed out the defective coin recognizes that it is the coin given out illegally, he has a moral duty to take it back even when the legal period in which he can be forced to take it back has expired. If he refuses, the injured party has the right to complain (i. e., tell about the case to other people) but has no recourse in court.. He may use it for Second Tithe without hesitation since it is only miserly⁹⁴In Temple times, Second Tithe produce was redeemed for coin which was spent on food in Jerusalem, to be eaten there in purity. Since the redemption is a transaction between a person and himself, occasionally deficient coins may be used since he knows the deficiency. But one may not collect deficient coins during the year and then use the collected coins for redemption (Ma‘aśer Šeni 2:7, Note 96).’⁹⁸After the destruction of the Temple and the disappearence of the ashes of the red cow (cf. Berakhot 1:1, Note 3) when food can no longer be eaten in purity, the coin has to be destroyed. For that purpose it even is preferable to use defective coins..
Cheating is by four oboli⁹⁹Mishnah 3., claim is about two oboli, confession is about one peruṭah¹⁰⁰The court will not impose a judicial oath unless it be a case in which the claim is at least 2 oboli and the defendant admits to owing at least 1 peruṭah:, Mishnah Šebuot 6:1.. There are five peruṭot¹⁰¹The peruṭah appears as minimal standard in five legal categories.: Confession is about one peruṭah¹⁰⁰The court will not impose a judicial oath unless it be a case in which the claim is at least 2 oboli and the defendant admits to owing at least 1 peruṭah:, Mishnah Šebuot 6:1.; a woman is preliminarily married by one peruṭah’s worth¹⁰²Mishnah Qiddušin 1:1.; one who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property committed larceny¹⁰³He has to pay a 25% fine and bring a sacrifice, Lev. 5:15–16.; one who finds one peruṭah’ s worth has to make it public; one who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, has to return it to him even in Media¹⁰⁴Mishnah Bava qamma 9:7..
There are five fifths¹⁰⁵Five cases in which a payment of 125% of the amount is due.: He who eats heave, or heave of the tithe¹⁰⁶If he eats in error, Mishnah Terumot 6:1; Lev. 22:14, Num. 18:26., or heave of the tithe of demay¹⁰⁷This only applies to demay(produce of which it is not known whether it was tithed), but not to the heave of its tithe; Mishnah Demay 1:2, Note 67., or ḥallah¹⁰⁸Num. 15:20., or first fruits¹⁰⁹Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1., adds a fifth¹¹⁰All these cases are considered identical since each of them is called “heave” in a verse.. He who redeems his vineyard in the fourth year¹¹¹Lev.19:24, 27:31. or his Second Tithe¹¹²Mishnah Ma‘aśer Šeni 5:5; Deut.14:25., adds a fifth. He who redeems his own gifts to the Temple, adds a fifth¹¹³Lev. 27:19.. He who used one peruṭah’s worth of Temple property, adds a fifth¹⁰³He has to pay a 25% fine and bring a sacrifice, Lev. 5:15–16.. He who robbed another of one peruṭah’s worth and swore about it, adds a fifth¹¹⁴Lev. 5:24..

MISHNAH: The following are stoned: A male having sexual relations with the mother, or the father’s wife⁵³Even if she is not his mother, Lev. 20:11. One infers from Lev. 20:27 that their blood be on them means that the punishment is stoning (Halakhah 9)., or the daughter-in-law, or a male, or an animal; or a female bringing an animal onto herself⁵⁴Lev. 20:12,13,15,16.. Also the blasphemer⁵⁵Lev. 24:23. It is a capital crime only if the Divine Name (which today is unknown) was used in the blasphemy., the worshipper of idols⁵⁶Deut. 17:5., he who gives one of his descendants to the Moloch⁵⁷Lev. 20:2., and the necromancer, and the medium⁵⁸Lev. 20:27. The necromancer is the person who raises the spirits of the dead; cf. 1S. 28. The medium is one who incorporates a spirit which predicts the future, speaking from the medium’s body, not his mouth.. Also one who desecrates the Sabbath⁵⁹Num. 15:36., or who curses father or mother⁶⁰Lev. 20:9., or who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden⁸Adultery by a preliminarily married virgin is punishable by stoning (Deut. 22:24), by a definitively married woman by “death” (Lev. 20:10), which by the preceding argument means the least painful of the four kinds of execution. Lev. 21:9 prescribes death by burning for the whoring daughter of a Cohen. The status (unmarried, preliminarily or definitively married) of the Cohen’s daughter is not spelled out. Since sexual activity of an unmarried woman is nowhere in the Bible classified as a capital crime [Sifra Emor Pereq 1(15)], it is assumed that the Cohen’s daughter mentioned in the verse cannot be unmarried (virgin or widowed). The problem remains whether Lev. 21:9 refers to a preliminarily or definitively married woman.
For R. Simeon, who holds that burning is more painful than stoning, Lev. 21:9 refers to any adulterous daughter of a Cohen, irrespective of the status of her marriage (Babli 50a). For the rabbis who hold that stoning is more painful than burning, Lev. 21:9 cannot refer to a preliminarily married maiden since then it would treat a Cohen’s daughter more leniently than an Israel’s, which contradicts the entire tenor of Lev. 21:1–9.
The formulation of the rabbis’ position is not quite correct since Deut. 22:24 applies only to a preliminarily married maiden (between the ages of 12 and 12 years 6 months; cf. Yebamot 1:3, Notes 159–160). In the text following, “preliminarily married” means “preliminarily married maiden”; “definitively married” means “definitively married or adult preliminarily married”., or who leads astray⁶¹The missionary for another faith who addresses individuals in private; Deut. 13:11, cf. Mishnah 16., or who seduces⁶²He acts in public; Halakhah 16., or the sorcerer⁶³Halakhah 19., or the deviant and rebellious son⁶⁴Deut. 21:21..

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he must say “ḥallah for all,” “heave for all.”¹⁴⁵The main place of this paragraph is at the end of the first Chapter of Ḥallah. It is inserted here as another example of rules to be followed to be able to make the declaration. It was established in the first Chapter of Terumot that heave may be given only from produce whose location is exactly pinpointed. Therefore, in taking heave one must declare all produce that should be freed by this heave. Ḥallah is called “heave” in Num. 15:19–20; it has to follow the rules of heave. “To YHWH,” that is the particular Name¹⁴⁶It is written about ḥallah(Num. 15:19): “Lift a heave to YHWH.” About heave, it is written (Num. 18:12): “Their first gifts which they will give to YHWH”. It is inferred that in separating heave of ḥallah, God may not be addressed as Elohim (which in absence of a definite article or other identifyer only means “extraordinary power”), but only as YHWH (in its substitute pronunciation) which is His particular Name.. From where that he did not do anything until he left some [as profane]? The verse says (Num. 15:21): “Of the beginning” and not all the beginning¹⁴⁷This refers to Mishnah Ḥallah1:9: He who says, everything on my threshing floor shall be heave, all my dough shall be ḥallah, did not say anything unless he leaves a [profane] remainder.”.

HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “majority”¹²³Discussion of the statement in the Mishnah, that Pesaḥ is celebrated in impurity if most (50%+1) of the people are impure. The following is an extended version of Halakhah 1:6 in Horaiot, where the problem is what is called “community”.? Rebbi Meïr¹²⁴He holds that everywhere 50%+1 represent “all”; Babli Horaiot 5b., as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority¹²⁵In order to trigger the ceremony required if all the community acts in error(Lev. 4:14), by following an erroneous ruling either of the High Court at the central sanctuary or of a majority of tribal High Courts.. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes¹²⁶The language is somewhat self-contradictory. He also requires that a majority of Israel follow the erroneous ruling but in addition he demands that in a majority of tribes a majority follow the ruling. Babli Horaiot 5b.. One tribe drags all tribes¹²⁷If one tribe has more members than all the others together, the action of one tribe triggers the obligation of all of them. He does not hold that the law about erroneous rulings of the High Court became moot with the exile of the Ten Tribes. Even later, when the tribe of Jehudah represented the overwhelming majority of Israel, a majority of the people can be considered a majority of all twelve tribes and the majority of Judeans triggers the obligation for all tribes.. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”¹²⁸The purification sacrifice for an erroneous ruling by the Court has to be brought by “the public” (Lev. 4:14). The difference of opinions in the Mishnah is traced to different interpretations of this notion. R. Meïr holds that only the entire people of Israel qualify as “public”; RR. Jehudah and Simeon consider each tribe as a separate public. (Babli Horaiot 5b, Pesaḥim 80a, Menaḥot15a).. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Meïr says, a single tribe does not drag all tribes¹²⁹Therefore he requires a separate sacrifice for the people of Israel in their entirety., but Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. And Rebbi Jehudah follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, one tribe drags all tribes¹³⁰In Horaiot, the opposite is asserted, that in this particular R. Simeon sides with R. Meïr; this also is required by the later statements in this Halakhah. R. Simeon agrees that each single tribe is called “public”., so Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes, he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall¹³¹Even though each tribe has to bring its own sacrifice, the ruling of a tribal High Court cannot trigger an obligation of any other tribe; only the Court sitting at the central sanctuary has this power.. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose¹³²Deut. 17:10.. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? The entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven¹³³Num. 15:26. R. Jehudah argues that the verse promises forgiveness for all of Israel even if only one tribe followed an erroneous ruling; this proves that “one tribe drags all the other tribes.” R. Simeon disagrees since the last clause in the verse states that the entire people have to be in error; only a majority of the tribes triggers the obligation.. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? Since the entire people acted in error¹³³Num. 15:26. R. Jehudah argues that the verse promises forgiveness for all of Israel even if only one tribe followed an erroneous ruling; this proves that “one tribe drags all the other tribes.” R. Simeon disagrees since the last clause in the verse states that the entire people have to be in error; only a majority of the tribes triggers the obligation.. How does Rebbi Simeon uphold Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, the entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven? Except women and children¹³⁴Not that they will not be forgiven but they are not counted in determining what is a majority.. How does Rebbi Jehudah uphold Rebbi Simeon’s reason, since the entire people acted in error? Except if the beginning was criminal and the conclusion in error. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written¹³⁷Gen. 35:11, said to Jacob after the birth of 11 sons. Babli Horaiot 5b.: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as it was stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Pesaḥ] and impure the second, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves¹³⁸Both offer their sacrifices in the Temple, in separate groups. For this to happen, the number of pure people in Jerusalem on the 14^th of Nisan must be exactly equal to the number of impure ones. Tosephta 6:2 in the name of R. Simeon. This latter attribution seems to be correct since in the paragraph after the next the Amoraim explain that R. Jehudah never considers this case but requires that the number of pure people present be diminished.. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in purity or all celebrate in impurity. Who is “they told him”? Rebbi Meïr. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there¹³⁹Mishnah Menaḥot2:2.
The Mishnah refers to the two public cereal offerings which have to be baked, viz., the weekly show-bread and the two leavened loaves presented at Pentecost. The 12 show-breads were presented in two rows, here called “orders” (Lev. 24:6).: “If one of the loaves or one of the orders became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned¹⁴⁰Outside the Temple precinct. for a public offering cannot be split¹⁴¹Cf. Babli 79a.. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten¹⁴²By the officiating priests..” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Meïr¹⁴³In Horaiot: R. Jehudah. In any case, the question should not arise since the objecting Sages, while adopting the point of view of one of the protagonists, are not bound to follow him in all details..

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, unintentionally a prohibition, intentionally a prohibition¹¹³In his opinion, only if both the unintentional and the intentional acts are forbidden as simple prohibitions is there no liability for a purification sacrifice, but if the unintentional act is under a simple prohibition and the intentional is a deadly sin punishable by extirpation a sacrifice is due. This opinion is not otherwise found in the Talmudim.. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, unintentionally extirpation, intentionally extirpation¹¹⁴This is the standard opinion, that a sacrifice is due only for sins for which the punishment is extirpation at least, and only if it was unintentional from beginning to end (ˋBabli 68b/69a, Yebamot 9a, Horaiot 8a, Ševuot 32b).. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, a support of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He blasphemes the Eternal and will be extirpated¹¹⁵Num. 15:31; the basic text which bars the intentional sinner from offering a purification sacrifice. The quote clearly is elliptic; in Sifry Num. 112 the restriction to sins punishable at least with extirpation is stated in the name of R. Aqiba.. Think of it; even if he was intentional in a matter of extirpation and he was warned and is being flogged, may he bring a sacrifice¹¹⁶If the sin was under a simple prohibition if unintentional but subjects the perpetrator to extirpartion if intentional, if the act was prosecutable, he was flogged, and therefore is no longer subject to extirpation (Mishnah Makkot 3:17), should he still be liable for a sacrifice for the simple prohibition involved? This we never heard; therefore the position of R. Yose ben Ḥanina is untenable.? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was unintentional about fat but intentional about the purification sacrifice one warns him and he is flogged¹¹⁷This sentence must read: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was intentional about fat but unintentional about the purification sacrifice one warns him and he is flogged (Terumot 6:1, Notes 5,6; Bava qamma 7:3, Note 29, Ševuot 3:1, Note 9)..

²⁵²This paragraph is a truncated quote from Ma‘aser Šeni Chapter 5 and is explained there, Notes 145–147. The paragraph should start: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he must say “ḥallah for all,” …“Ḥallah for all, heave for all.” “To YHWH,” that is the particular Name. From where that he did not do anything until he left some [as profane]? The verse says (Num. 15:21): “Of the beginning” and not all the beginning.

MISHNAH: For all commandments of the Torah where one is liable to extirpation for willful infraction and a purification sacrifice for unintentional infraction, the individual brings a sheep or a she-goat⁹⁴Lev. 4:28,32., the Prince a he-goat⁹⁵Lev. 4:23, and the Anointed or the Court bring a bull⁹⁶Cf. Mishnaiot 1:6, 2:1.. For idolatry the individual, the Prince, and the Anointed bring a she-goat, the Court bring a bull as elevation offering and a goat as purification sacrifice⁹⁷Num. 15:22–25..
For a suspended reparation sacrifice the individual and the Prince are liable but the Anointed and the Court are not liable⁹⁸Mishnah 5.. For a certain reparation sacrifice the individual, and the Prince, and the Anointed are liable but the Court is not liable⁹⁹The reparation sacrifices for robberies or defrauding (Lev. 5:20–26), larceny of sancta(Lev. 5:14–16), the semi-manumitted slave girl (Lev. 19:20–22), the nazir(Num. 6:12), and the healed sufferer from skin disease (Lev. 14:1–32). Since no extirpation is involved, the Court is not liable for a sacrifice in case they rule wrongly in one of these matters.. For hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, or the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, the Court is not liable, the individual, and the Prince, and the Anointed are liable¹⁰⁰Mishnah 6. but the Anointed is not liable for the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, the words of Rebbi Simeon⁸⁴He is not mentioned in our Mishnah text, but Mishnah 8 states that the High Priest is exempt according to everybody; only for the king does R. Aqiba disagree; Babli 9a. According to Tosephta 1:10, the king is exempted only for disregarding a request for testimony and the High Priest for violations of impurity (since his diadem is a permanent atonement for imperfect sacrifices, Ex. 28:38.)
The High Priest is required (Lev.21:10) to be the richest priest; if he is not, the other priests have to make him so. R. Joseph David Sinzheim (Yad David on Horaiot) notes that the High Priest had the choice always to officiate at the burning of incense. Any other priest was given only a once in a lifetime occasion for this (Mishnah Yoma 2:4) since presenting the incense made the presenter rich (explicit in the Babli, implicit in the Yerushalmi, Yoma Halakhah 2:4, 40a 12). The king naturally has taxing powers.
Since king and High Priest are never able to bring a sacrifice according to the rules of the poor (Lev. 5:7–10) or the very poor (vv. 11–13), they are prohibited from ever bringing a sacrifice depending on the offerer’s wealth.. What do they bring? A variable sacrifice. Rebbi Eliezer says, the Prince brings a goat¹⁰¹This is qualified in the Halakhah..

Rebbi Jonah asked before Rebbi Yose: Why did we not state ḥallah with these¹⁵⁹Which applies outside the Land by rabbinic decree.? He said to him, our Mishnah only deals with something which applies to Israel and the Gentiles¹⁶⁰Which is forbidden to Jews even if grown by Gentiles. For kilaim, cf. Kilaim 1:7, Notes 122–140.. But ḥallah only applies to Israel, as it is written (Num. 15:20): The first of your dough,” not of Gentiles.

⁶⁴³This text is from ‘Orlah 3:8 (62b, line 37) (ל); Notes 158–160.“Rebbi Eliezer says, also new grain.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? (Lev. 23:14) “In all your dwelling places,” both inside and outside the Land. How do the rabbis explain the reason of Rebbi Eliezer, “in all your dwelling places”? New grain from here which was exported. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why did we not state ḥallah with these? Rebbi Yose said to him, our Mishnah only deals with something which applies to Israel and the Gentiles. But ḥallah only applies to Israel, not to Gentiles. What is the reason? (Num. 15:20): The first of your dough,” not of Gentiles.

Whoever makes light of a single point of the Torah is liable to kareth, as it is stated, Because he hath despised the word of the Lord … that soul shall utterly be cut off.¹⁴Num. 15, 31. And he who makes light of the [precept of] washing the hands will be uprooted from the world.¹⁵Added by GRA. Cf. Soṭah 4b (Sonc. ed., p. 16).

Further [R. ‘Aḳiba] sat on the bench [and taught]: Good things are brought about through the agency of good men.⁶⁷Cf. Shab. 32a (Sonc. ed., p. 146). Even if Moses and Aaron had not arisen, Israel would still have been worthy to be redeemed from Egypt,⁶⁸Because of the promise God made to Abraham. as it is stated, And afterward shall they come out with great substance.⁶⁹Gen. 15, 14. Had not Moses and Aaron and the Generation of the Wilderness arisen, Israel would still have been worthy to receive the Torah, as it is stated, He layeth up sound wisdom for the upright.⁷⁰Prov. 2, 7, sound wisdom being a synonym for the Torah and the upright for Israel. The section of ‘the judges’⁷¹Ex. 18, 21-23. would have been worthy to be promulgated even if Jethro had not arisen. The section of ‘the smaller Passover’⁷²Num. 9, 1-14, also known as the ‘second Passover’. would have been worthy to be promulgated even if the ‘unclean’ had not arisen, as it is stated, We are unclean by the dead body of a man; wherefore are we to be kept back, so as not to bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season among the children of Israel?⁷³ibid. 7. The section of ‘inheritance’⁷⁴ibid.XXVII, 6-11. would have been worthy to be promulgated even if the daughters of Zelophehad⁷⁵ibid. 1-5. had not arisen. The Temple would have been worthy to be built even if David and Solomon had not arisen, as it is stated, The sanctuary, O Lord, which Thy hands have established.⁷⁶Ex. 15, 17. Israel would have been worthy to be redeemed in the days of Haman even it Mordecai and Esther had not arisen, as it is stated, And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly,⁷⁷Lev. 26, 44. etc.
Israel were destined to be enslaved even if Pharaoh had not arisen in Egypt, as it is stated, And [they] shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years.⁷⁸Gen. 15, 13. Israel were destined to serve idols even if Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, had not arisen, as it is stated, And this people will rise up, and go astray after the foreign gods of the land.⁷⁹Deut. 31, 16. The section of ‘the blasphemer’⁸⁰Lev. 24, 10ff. and of ‘the gatherer of sticks’⁸¹Num. 15 32-36. would have been worthy to be promulgated even if the son of the Israelitish woman and the gatherer of sticks had not arisen. Israel would have been destined to be destroyed by the sword even if so and so⁸²i.e. nations hostile to Israel. They were so many that they are not specified. had not arisen, as it is stated, All the sinners of My people shall die by the sword;⁸³Amos.Cf. IX, 10. and it declares, By sword and famine shall they be consumed.⁸⁴Jer. 14, 15. Israel would have deserved to be destroyed even if Nebuchadnezzar and his companions had not arisen, as it is stated, Therefore shall Zion for your sake be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.⁸⁵Micah 3, 12.

HALAKHAH: “The worshipper of strange worship,” etc. From where warning about strange worship? Do not worship them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment.. Extirpation from where? He blasphemed the Eternal and will be extirpated²⁴⁸Num. 15:30. The verse describes any person who sins intentionally as a blasphemer. The verse decrees extirpation as punishment for any willful deed for which a sacrifice would be required if done inadvertently, in case it cannot be prosecuted in court for lack of witnesses.
The traditional interpretation of the purification sacrifices prescribed in Num. 15:22–29, which differ from those prescribed under similar headings in Lev. 4:1–5:14, assigns the sacrifices prescribed in Num. exclusively to sins of idolatry; those of Lev. to the atonement of all other transgressions (Sifry Num. 111–112). Therefore, the following verse 15:30 can also be interpreted as specifically referring to idolatry.. But is there not written “blasphemed”? As one would say to another, you scraped out the entire pot²⁴⁹It seems that in Galilean dialect גדּף جدف “to blaspheme” was pronounced like גדף جذف “to fly quickly” and this in turn sounded like גרף جرف “to scoop out with a shovel, to scratch out completely.” The parallel in the Babli, Keritut 7b, formulates גִּירַפְתָּ הַקְּעָרָה “you scratched out the pot” and Rashi comments: ד can be replaced by ר. and did not leave anything; a parable which Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar formulated: Two people were sitting with a pot of porridge between them. One of them stretched out his hand, scraped out the entire pot, and did not leave anything in it. So both the blasphemer and the worshipper of strange worship do not leave any commandment as residue²⁵⁰Obeying a Divine command after blaspheming or worshipping a strange deity is an empty gesture, devoid of all value.. From where the punishment? You shall lead out that man, or that woman, who did this deed to your gates, etc., up to and stone them with stones until they die²⁵¹Deut. 17:5..

Idolatry is worse than all others: “But if you should err and not fulfill all these commandments.¹⁷²Num. 15:22. The rules for purification offerings are given in Lev. 4–5. The appearance of another set of purification offerings in Num. 15:22–28 is explained by the rule that these offerings are only for expiation of inadvertent idolatry (Sifry Num. 111). The Babli, Erubin 69b, equates desecration of the Sabbath and idolatry in severity.” Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, the desecration of the Name is worse than all others. That is what is written¹⁷³Truncated from Ez. 20:39.: “But to you, the House of Israel, so says the Eternal, Israel’s God, go and worship everybody his abominations but My holy Name do not desecrate, etc.

Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If one says to it, you are my god, there is disagreement between Rebbi²⁷⁸This disagreement is not mentioned in any other source. It is possible that a name should be inserted here. and the Sages. If he (prostrated himself)²⁶⁶It is clear that one has to read ומנשק “and kisses” instead of ומשתחוה “and prostrates himself”. Embracing and kissing are not acts of worship., what is the rule? Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that if he lowered his body²⁷⁹This is prostrating which by the verse was defined as an idolatrous act., he is guilty. What is the difference between raising and lowering his body, and raising and lowering his lips²⁸⁰This is declaring the idol as one’s god, which also can be done by only moving body parts, the lips. In the Babli, 65b, R. Johanan extends his argument by criminalizing a person who prevents his ox from eating while threshing by shouting at it.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, following disagreement²⁸¹The nature of this disagreement cannot be determined. It is possible that R. Joḥanan by his argument implies that embracing and kissing idols are capital crimes.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the distinction²⁸²The distinction made in the Mishnah between idolatrous acts which are capital crimes and those which are simple transgressions.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One rule should be for you, for the one acting in error²⁸³Num. 15:29; the reference to idolatrous acts is explained in Note 248.. This only refers to what represents an action. The one who embraces (and who prostrates himself)²⁶⁶It is clear that one has to read ומנשק “and kisses” instead of ומשתחוה “and prostrates himself”. Embracing and kissing are not acts of worship., which are not action, from where²⁸⁴Therefore, embracing and kissing cannot be capital crimes since they do not fit the criterion for a purification sacrifice in case the act was unintentional.?

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: if it was made like half a bagel³²⁰If a Mezuzah is written in calligraphy in the shape of half-circles one inside the other then the inner arcs are shorter than the outer ones and contain fewer words.. The uppermost line under which are two others must contain at least three words, the middle one two, the lowest one even [on the] earth³²¹Deut. 11:21. The addition by the corrector clearly has to be deleted.. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: if it was made like a double flute<sup>322</sup>Greek συμφωνία. It is \_/-shaped, having the two mouth pieces close together but the bodies of the flutes diverging., the uppermost line under which are two others must contain at least three words, the lowest two. The middle one I do not know<sup>323</sup>Whether it need 2 or 3 words. Therefore 3 certainly are sufficient. The Babli Menaḥot 30b quotes the first Tanna as R. Yose (whom Babylonian practice follows), the second one as R. Jehudah’s.. Rebbi Jeremiah said it: Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥisda; Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, Rebbi Ze`ura in the name of Ashian bar Nidba; the colleagues say, Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥananel. If the ink comes out of the holes it is disqualified. What does he do? He licks it off with his tongue and it jells³²³Whether it need 2 or 3 words. Therefore 3 certainly are sufficient. The Babli Menaḥot 30b quotes the first Tanna as R. Yose (whom Babylonian practice follows), the second one as R. Jehudah’s.. If he made an error and omitted the Name. There are Tannaim who state, he suspends the Name. There are Tannaim who state, he erases the profane, writes the Name, and suspends the profane³²⁴If there is a hole in the leather or parchment which is visible once the ink has dried, the letter is incomplete and disqualified. But if the ink when dry covers the hole completely so that the reader will not notice the hole, it is qualified. Babli Šabbat 108a.. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Ḥananel in the name of Rav: practice follows him who says, he erases the profane, writes the Name, and suspends the profane. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Ḥananel in the name of Rav: but if it was like I am the Eternal your God³²⁵Num. 15:41. it is permitted. Why? Because these are three words or because part of it is profane? What is the difference between them? God, Highest Power, Eternal³²⁶Jos. 22:22. The situation does not occur in the Pentateuch.. If you are saying because they are three words, they are three words. If you are saying, because part of it is profane, nothing there is profane. For the Eternal is questionable, by the Eternal is questionable³²⁷Since it will be stated later that prefixes of the Name may be erased while suffixes may not, the question is whether an erasable prefix has the same status as a profane word preceding the Name..

MISHNAH: One who desecrates the Sabbath^59,Num. 15:36.³⁴¹If duly warned by two witnesses about the criminality of his intent, he can be prosecuted if in the absence of witnesses he would be subject to Divine extirpation. But if he violates any of the positive commandments for the Sabbath he cannot be prosecuted by biblical standards; for violating a simple prohibition he at most could be sentenced to 39 lashes. by something which if performed intentionally makes him liable to extirpation, or to a purification sacrifice if in error. But he who curses father or mother⁶⁰Lev. 20:9. is guilty only of he cursed them by the Name²⁰⁷The Tetragrammaton in its original pronunciation, now lost.. If he cursed them by a substitute name, Rebbi Meïr declares him guilty but the Sages free him from prosecution.
One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married adolescent⁷It is not mentioned anywhere in biblical literature as a recognized form of execution. The Babli’s discussion, 52b, is inconclusive. is only liable if she was an adolescent, a virgin, and preliminarily married, in her father’s house. If two [men] had relations with her, the first one is stoned, the second is subject to strangling³⁴²As a common adulterer..

R. Meir said: Whoever has a House of Study in his town and does not frequent it forfeits his life,²⁸Ber. 8a (Sonc. ed., p. 39) reads ‘Synagogue’, a dictum of Resh Laḳish. as it is stated, Thus saith the Lord: What unrighteousness have your fathers found in Me that they are gone far from Me?²⁹Jer 2, 5. The proof-text is added by GRA. How much more so [if he does not attend] an Academy which contains thousands and myriads of Biblical precepts! R. Meir said: Anyone who has a scholar near him and does not wait upon him [as a disciple] forfeits his life, as it is stated, Because he hath despised the word of the Lord.³⁰Num. 15, 31.

Three kings and four commoners have no share in the World to Come. The three kings are: Jeroboam, Ahab, and Menashe. The four commoners are: Bil’am, Doeg, Ahitophel, and Gehazi. Rabbi Yehudah would say: Menashe already repented, as it says (II Chronicles 33:13), “And he prayed to God, and God granted his prayer….” They replied: If that verse had [continued] only with, “…and returned him to Jerusalem,” and stopped, we would have [said] exactly what you said. But because it continues and says, “…and to his kingship,” that means he was returned to his kingdom and not returned to the World to Come.
Rabbi Meir would say: Absalom has no share in the World to Come. Rabbi Yohanan ben Guri said: Even one who pronounces God’s name as it is written has no share in the World to Come. He would also say: One who sings Song of Songs with a vibrato has no share in the World to Come. (One who whispers incantations over a wound,) one who spits into a wound, or chants over a wound, “I will no longer afflict you with all the diseases that I put upon you in Egypt,” does not have a share in the World to Come.
The sages would say: Any Torah scholar who stops learning has no share in the World to Come, as it says (Numbers 15:31), “Because he has spurned the word of the Eternal.” And it also says (Jeremiah 2:5), “What wrong did your ancestors find in Me that caused them to distance themselves from Me?
Rabbi Meir would say: Anyone who has a study hall in his city and never goes there has no share in the World to Come. Rabbi Akiva would say: Even someone who does not serve the scholars has no share in the World to Come.