Powtórzonego Prawa 14:20 Odniesienia do Talmudu: Jerusalem Talmud Nazir & Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia

“ ‘I have to bring birds’, Rebbi Meïr says, he is a nazir, but the Sages say, he is not a nazir.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of substitutes of substitutes: “Until his hair became mighty as an eagle’s and his fingernails like those of birds.²²Dan. 4:30. This establishes a proverbial connection between long hair and a mention of birds.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, because an impure nazir brings birds²⁷Num. 6:10. But no pure person would entertain the idea of becoming a nazir if he expects to become impure since that could extend his period of nezirut indefinitely.. Does he bring birds²⁸Many people use צִפּוֹר only for wild birds.? He brings turtledoves or young pigeons. There are some Tannaïm who state that all pure birds are called צפור, and there are some Tannaïm who state that all birds, whether pure or impure, are called צפור. He who says that all pure birds are called צפור, “you may eat any pure bird²⁹Deut. 14:11. In Scripture, צפור is feminine..” He who says that all birds, whether pure or impure, are called צפור, “say to any winged bird³⁰Ez. 39:14.. “What is the rabbi’s reason? He is like somebody offering birds for the upkeep of the Temple³¹The expression הֲרֵי עָלַי “I have to bring” is a regular form of a vow, which in Temple times implied a gift to the Temple. A single bird can be offered as a voluntary sacrifice (Lev. 1:14–17) but a couple can be given only as an obligatory sacrifice, i. e., a reparation or a purification sacrifice. These can never be given voluntarily, as result of a vow. Since the vow was formulated for birds, not a bird, it is concluded that the birds have to be given to the Temple for its upkeep, to be sold to persons needing them for obligatory sacrifices, with the proceeds given to the Temple treasury.. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? He is like somebody offering a reparation sacrifice for the upkeep of the Temple³²This is an impossibility; an obligatory sacrifice cannot be given voluntarily and it has to be offered on the altar, not sold for the Temple’s benefit. Therefore, the vow has to be interpreted as a wish to be in a situation in which one has to bring a reparation sacrifice to the Temple. The only reparation sacrifices which depend on the person’s initiative are either the possible sacrifice of the impure nazir or those required of the person guilty of larceny (Lev. 5:14–16, 21–26). Since it is impossible to think that a person should want to commit larceny for religious purposes, the state of nazir is the only alternative.. What is the difference between them? If somebody says, “I take upon myself to bring a reparation sacrifice.” In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr he is a nazir since one cannot bring a reparation sacrifice for the upkeep of the Temple. In the opinion of the rabbis he is a nazir since an impure nazir brings a reparation sacrifice³³Since in this formulation there is no difference between the rabbis and R. Meïr, all commentaries read “he is not a nazir”; since no person would accept nezirut with the prospect of an indefinite duration unless he spells this out clearly at the start, the vow is invalid because it is unrealistic. If one keeps the original wording, the rabbis and R. Meїr agree not only on the result but also on the reasoning behind it..

MISHNAH: Wages of a human, as well as wages for an animal, as well as wages for implements are subsumed under “you must pay his wages on his day”⁷⁰If he is not paid promptly, the employer sins against “you must pay his wages on his day” (Deut. 24:15). and “one may not withhold a hireling’s wages until the morning”⁶⁹Since he works until sundown, he cannot be paid during the day. If he was not paid by daybreak the next morning, his employer has sinned against the rule that “one may not withhold a hireling’s wages until the morning” (Lev. 19:13).. When? If he claimed it. If he did not claim it, one does not transgress. If one gave him a draft on a storekeeper or a banker, he does not transgress. In his time⁷⁴The time when he has to be paid according to Mishnah 11. the hireling swears and takes⁷⁵The hireling claims that he was not paid; the employer claims that he did pay; neither of them has witnesses. Then the hireling is privileged; the court will allow him to swear that he was not paid and then order his employer to pay.; after his time he does not swear and take⁷⁶The ordinary rules of procedure apply: in the absence of proof the defendant may swear to absolve himself.. But if there are witnesses that he did claim, he swears and takes⁷⁷Even after the 12 hour period when he should have been paid. The unpaid hireling has to protect his claim by asking for his money in front of witnesses..
The resident proselyte⁸⁰He is a full Jew in contrast to the גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב “resident proselyte” who only keeps the Noaḥide commandments. is protected by “you must pay his wages on his day” but not by “one may not withhold a hireling’s wages until the morning”⁸⁵The verse Deut. 24:14 speaks of “your proselyte … in your gates.” The same expression is used in Deut. 14:20 to permit the sale of carcass meat to the resident proselyte. By the doctrine of invariable lexemes in the Torah, the expression in Deut. 24:14 refers to the resident proselyte. But Lev. 19:13 speaks of “your neighbor”; only the just proselyte is covered by that expression. (Halakhah 14; Babli 111b)..

“The resident proselyte is protected by ‘you must pay his wages on his day’ ”, etc. It is written: “Do not oppress your neighbor,” excluding the resident proselyte⁸⁵The verse Deut. 24:14 speaks of “your proselyte … in your gates.” The same expression is used in Deut. 14:20 to permit the sale of carcass meat to the resident proselyte. By the doctrine of invariable lexemes in the Torah, the expression in Deut. 24:14 refers to the resident proselyte. But Lev. 19:13 speaks of “your neighbor”; only the just proselyte is covered by that expression. (Halakhah 14; Babli 111b)..