Êxodo 34:25 Passagens Relacionadas

לֹֽא־תִשְׁחַ֥ט עַל־חָמֵ֖ץ דַּם־זִבְחִ֑י וְלֹא־יָלִ֣ין לַבֹּ֔קֶר זֶ֖בַח חַ֥ג הַפָּֽסַח׃

Não sacrificarás sobre levedura o sangue de Meu sacrifício; e a oferta do sacrifício da Pessach não permanecerá até a manhã.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim

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..
Perguntar a um rabinoBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim

HALAKHAH: From where that one who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition? The verse says130Ex. 23:18; 34:25: Do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice; the sacrifice of the Pesaḥ pilgrimage. “On leavened matter” means that he has leavened matter in his possession., do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice. I have not only the slaughterer, from where the one who pours the blood? The verse says, not on leavened matter the blood. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, since he becomes guilty for pouring, this implies that the Pesaḥ be qualified132,A disqualified sacrifice is no sacrifice at all and therefore not a subject of the prohibition.136Tosephta 4:3.. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that leavened matter came to him between slaughter and pouring or that one person was slaughtering and another pouring137In both cases the slaughter was correct and only the pouring incorrect. One still has to assume that the Pesaḥ slaughtered on leavened matter even in the afternoon of the 14th is disqualified..
Perguntar a um rabinoBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon: One verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice, and another verse167The second verse is Ex. 23:18, where it says לֹא־תִזְבַּח, the first is Ex..34:25. Babli 64a. says, do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice. One refers to the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, one168This is formulated as if the second verse referred to the intermediate days of the holiday. to all other consumed sacrifices on the workdays of the holiday. How did you understand to add them on the workdays of the holiday and to exclude them from the Fourteenth? After that the verse added, it subtracted169Ex. 23:18 is general, referring to sacrifices eaten by its owners in general, while Ex..34:25 explicitly mentions the Pesaḥ and therefore restricts its meaning.. I am adding them on the workdays of the holiday since these are subject to “it should not be seen nor found”170Chapter 2:2 Note 90., and exclude them from the Fourteenth where they are not under “it should not be seen nor found”. And this parallels what Rebbi Meïr said; as Rebbi Meïr said, after noontime it is of their words171Chapter 1:4, Notes 109–110.. Rebbi Mana said, there where it says, the consumed sacrifice of the Pesaḥ holiday of pilgrimage, we hold that it refers to the Fourteenth172Ex..34:25 must refer to the 14th of Nisan; the anonymous majority is justified in rejecting R. Simeon’s position.
Perguntar a um rabinoBookmarkShareCopy