Levítico 16:23 Passagens Relacionadas

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? He undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.⁹⁷The argument is about Lev. 16:23–24, where at the end of the expiatory service Aaron is commanded first to take off his byssus garments, then to wash (immerse himself), and then to dress in the High Priest’s garb for the ordinary afternoon service.. What is the rabbi’s reason? And he undressed, and he dressed. It tied undressing to dressing⁹⁸The argument is more explicit in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 6(6) and here in Halakhah 7:3, Babli 71a. It says in Lev. 16:23, he shall take off the linen garments which he wore. Since nobody can take off clothing which he does not wear, the reference is taken to v. 4 where Aaron is commanded to wash his flesh in water and wear them. Therefore all procedures connected with dressing are required for undressing, in the same order.. Since for dressing he sanctifies, so for undressing he sanctifies. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, does washing separate in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion⁹⁹As formulated at the beginning, the second sanctification is tied to washing, not to dressing. This is unreasonable.? He said to him, you think that Rebbi Meïr’s reason is, and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.. It is not so, but and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and dressed and sanctified.

¹²⁸One returns to the discussion of the Mishnah. Most of this paragraph is a baraita in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 6(6).”You find that by five immersions and ten sanctifications he immerses and sanctifies himself on that day. From where that there are two sanctifications for every immersion? The verse says⁹⁷The argument is about Lev. 16:23–24, where at the end of the expiatory service Aaron is commanded first to take off his byssus garments, then to wash (immerse himself), and then to dress in the High Priest’s garb for the ordinary afternoon service., and he undressed, and he washed, and he washed, (and he undressed) [and he dressed]. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, it is an argument de minore ad majus. Since at a place where he does not need immersion he needs sanctification of hands and legs¹²⁹During all other days of the year, there is only one sanctification at the start of the day’s service., here where he needs immersion not so much more that he should need sanctification of hands and legs? Take away your argument. Since there it is once for the entire day, also here it would be once for the entire day¹³⁰Since the consequence of a logical argument cannot be stronger than the premise.. The verse says, and he shall take off the linen garments, why does the verse say, which he wore? Could we ever think that he took off what he was not wearing? Then why does it say, which he wore? It bracketed undressing and dressing. Since dressing needs sanctification of hands and legs, also undressing needs sanctification of hands and legs⁹⁸The argument is more explicit in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 6(6) and here in Halakhah 7:3, Babli 71a. It says in Lev. 16:23, he shall take off the linen garments which he wore. Since nobody can take off clothing which he does not wear, the reference is taken to v. 4 where Aaron is commanded to wash his flesh in water and wear them. Therefore all procedures connected with dressing are required for undressing, in the same order..” Rebbi Mana said, it is reasonable the opposite way. It bracketed undressing and dressing. Since undressing needs sanctification of hands and legs, also dressing needs sanctification of hands and legs¹³¹Since “washing” is mentioned after undressing and before dressing. Only the corrector’s text is correct..”