Deuteronômio 12:23 Referências do Talmudee: Jerusalem Talmud Nazir, Jerusalem Talmud Terumot, Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat & Sanhedrin

Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarti asked: Then one who eats a limb from a kosher living animal should be guilty on two counts⁸³He argues against R. Joḥanan who stated that one who eats a limb from a “torn” animal violates two laws at the same time. Why should the verses quoted not apply to a completely healthy kosher animal?, because of “you shall not eat any carcass meat⁴²Deut. 14:21.⁸⁴Since the impurity of limbs from a living animal is identical with the impurity of carcasses, and by the argument of R. Yose ben Hanina food prohibitions follow impurity.;” and because of “you shall not eat of life with the flesh⁴⁵Deut. 12:23. It is forbidden to cat limbs torn from a living animal. (In rabbinic interpretation, this is the prohibition imposed on all mankind by Gen. 9:4: “But meat in whose blood is life you shall not eat”, meat taken when life is still carried by the blood.).” Does one argue from kosher abour non-kosher animals? But did not Rebbi Eleazar argue⁸⁰To R. Abbahu. from kosher about non-kosher animals? Then one who eats a limb from a non-kosher living animal should be guilty on three counts, because of “you shall not eat any carcass meat⁴²Deut. 14:21.;” and because of “you shall not eat of life with the flesh⁴⁵Deut. 12:23. It is forbidden to cat limbs torn from a living animal. (In rabbinic interpretation, this is the prohibition imposed on all mankind by Gen. 9:4: “But meat in whose blood is life you shall not eat”, meat taken when life is still carried by the blood.)”; and because of “you shall not eat from their flesh.⁸⁵Lev. 11:8. The verse also connects food prohibition and impurity: “you shall not eat from their flesh nor touch their carcasses”. The prohibition of touching applies to people intending to enter the holy precinct.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If somebody ate five ants together, in one forgetting⁸⁶Even though all sins of the same kind incurred while one was oblivious of the prohibition can be atoned for by one purification sacrifice, each creature is in a category by itself., he is guilty for each one separately because of “creature”⁶¹Since an ant is a complete creature, it is forbidden food (Lev. 11:41) irrespective of size (cf. Berakhot 6:1, Note 17). In the Babli, Makkot 16b, eating an ant is counted as violating up to five prohibitions simultaneously.. If he fragmented and ate them, he is guilty only once, if together they amount to the volume of an olive. If he ate of the fragments in the volume of an olive, he is guilty; if he ate of the fragments in the volume of an olive and an ant, he is guilty twice⁸⁷The same argument, applied to the Babli’s opinion (Note 62), is in the Babli Makkot 16b.. If this is correct, then if he ate of the fragments less than the volume of an olive and an ant completed the volume of an olive, is he guilty twice⁸⁸Since the ant it counted for itself, can it be counted with the volume filled by the forbidden pieces?? If this is correct, if the ate an ant the size of an olive, is he guilty twice? The same rule applies to combinations⁸⁹As enumerated in Mishnah 2, combining wine, vinegar, leaves, husks, pomace, etc. of a nazir. If he ate of the combinations in the volume of an olive, he is guilty. If he ate of the combinations in the volume of an olive and a grape berry, is he guilty twice⁹⁰For eating the volume of an olive from the produce of the vine he violates Num. 6:4; for the single intact grape berry he violates Num. 6:3.? If this is correct, then if he ate a grape berry for the volume ofan olive, is he guilty twice? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All [food] prohibitions combine together⁹¹In the Babli, ‘Avodah zarah 66a, this is a tannaitic statement derived from Deut. 14:3. to be whipped for the volume of an olive, but for an ant one is guilty twice. Then if he ate prohibited food and an ant completed the volume of an olive, he is guilty twice. Then if he ate an ant the volume of an olive, he is guilty twice.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple¹¹⁵The entire paragraph deals with the minor who is able to give heave but has not yet grown two pubic hairs, for R. Yose if he is able to make vows and for R. Jehudah even if he is younger.. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, he can dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate¹¹⁶The statement regarding heave is in the Mishnah. The statement about sacrifices must have been in a baraita not otherwise transmitted. Since a voluntary sacrifice must be dedicated by a vow, even R. Jehudah must agree that a minor who may not make a vow cannot dedicate a sacrifice.. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate¹¹⁷In contrast to heave, where the exclusion of minors is based on a verse mentioning “every man” (cf. Note 3), sacrifices are attributed to “a human” (Lev. 1:2), including a minor.. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings¹¹⁸These are voluntary offerings that also may be brought by Gentiles. Therefore, persons not under the obligations of biblical commandments may dedicate these sacrifices. {The use of the translation “well-being offering” for שלמים does not imply that this is the correct meaning of the word.}. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood¹¹⁹Since a minor is not obligated under the law, he cannot sin and, therefore, can never bring a sin offering. It is forbidden to eat the blood of any animal (Lev. 17:10–14); transgression of the prohibition is a sin which heaven will punish with extermination if intentional but which, if committed unintentionally, may be atoned for by a sin sacrifice (or, even if intentional, by repentance and the Day of Atonement). “Sacrifice for blood” is a catchword for “sacrifice to atone for a sin punishable by extermination.” It is also forbidden to eat those lumps of fat of cattle, sheep, or goats which would be burned on the altar if the animal were a sacrifice (Lev. 7:23). Punishment for this offense, if documented by two witnesses, is whipping. Therefore, “sacrifice for fat” is a catchword for “sacrifice to atone for an unintentional simple sin.”. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease¹²⁰These are obligatory sacrifices of purification when the condition is healed, Lev. 15:14–15, 14:1–32. Without these sacrifices, the afflicted person cannot touch any dedicated food.? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it¹²¹A minor cannot be obligated for anything. Since the courtyard of the Temple is reserved for sacrifices, it is forbidden to bring profane animals into it. Therefore, the priests should be required to refuse entry to such a sacrifice when brought by a minor., or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it¹²²If he has parents, the parents will bring the sacrifice for him to make sure the entire family can partake of the family offerings. Here we speak about a minor who is an orphan.? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these¹²³To present somebody else’s sacrifice for the purification of that person.? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he cannot free his ṭevel by Torah law¹²⁴If the orphan minor owns agricultural land, the harvest before taking heave will become ṭevel (cf. Peah, Chapter 1, Note 303) and be forbidden for consumption. The prohibition is removed by giving heave. R. Meїr, quoted above, will prevent the minor from putting his own ṭevel in order himself.! So here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah who says thatFirst Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things¹²⁵First Fruits are an obligation of the farmer (Deut. 26:1–11). In Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1 it is stated that First Fruits must be eaten by Cohanim under the rules of heave. In Mishnah 3:10, R. Jehudah states that after presentation in the Temple, First Fruits may be given to any Cohen but the rabbis require that they be eaten by the priests serving in the Temple at the moment of presentation. This means that for R. Jehudah, the status of First Fruits is that of heave which may be eaten in the entire territory of the Holy Land (called “territorial consecrated things”) but for the rabbis they are consecrated to the Temple.? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage¹²⁶A pilgrimage to the Temple at one of the festivals of pilgrimage carries with it the obligation of two sacrifices, the sacrifice of appearance, (ראיון, Deut. 16:16) which is a holocaust, and a family sacrifice, (חגיגה, Deut. 16:11,14; 12:18) which is a well-being offering.? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering¹²⁷If somebody selected an animal as Passover sacrifice but then it disappeared before the holiday and another animal was dedicated, if the originally dedicated animal reappears it is brought as a well-being offering any time after the holiday (Babli Pesaḥim 70b)., may he bring it? May he bring tithes of animals¹²⁸Lev. 27:32–33. Every tenth newborn in a herd of cattle or flock of sheep and goats has to be offered as a sacrifice. Tithes of produce are mentioned there in verses 30,31.? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion (Num. 18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together¹²⁹In Sifry Deut. 105, this is derived from another verse as anonymous statement., then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions¹³⁰In Lev. 27:10, it is stated that one may not substitute a different animal for an unblemished animal already designated as sacrifice. The act of substitution is not invalid but sinful and causes both animals to become sacrifices. Since a minor cannot sin, it is questionable whether his act of substitution is valid.? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions¹³¹The prohibition of substitution is repeated in Lev. 27:33, speaking of the tithe of animals. Since the tithe of animals is dedicated as sacrifice, the mention of the prohibition seems to be superfluous; it is taken to indicate that the rules of validity of tithes determine the rules of validity of substitutions.. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple¹³²It is sinful to sacrifice an animal outside of the Temple (Deut. 12:23). If the minor’s dedication of an animal as sacrifice is valid in biblical law, it is sinful to slaughter the animal outside the Temple. But if the dedication is valid only by rabbinic practice, the animal becomes dedicated only by its acceptance by the priests in the Temple and slaughter outside the Temple is not sinful.? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, one is guilty¹³³The disagreement is quoted, in slightly changed form, in Babli Niddah 46b. In contrast to the Yerushalmi, the Babli states that RR. Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish declare the slaughterer guilty only by rabbinic practice.. The statement of Cahana disagrees since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law¹³⁴Since ṭevel comes into being by agricultural activity, not by the minor’s choice, if R. Jehudah permits the minor to give heave, he lets him remove a biblical prohibition and, therefore, gives the minor’s actions validity in biblical law.. We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily¹³⁵R. Eleazar in Ševi‘it 6:1 (Note 11). Since R. Eleazar is mentioned only if R. Joḥanan disagrees, R. Joḥanan here holds that heave today is a biblical commandment, following R. Yose ben Ḥanina [loc. cit. Note 8; Seder Olam Chapter 30, cf. in the author’s edition (Northvale, N.J., 1998), pp. 257–259, x–xi.].

“Who dyes it.” What kind of dying was in the Tabernacle? They were clobbering an animal for red skins of rams³⁷⁹Ex. 25:5, 26:14.. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that he is liable who causes a wound which results in echymosis³⁸⁰If the blue spot stays blue more than 24 hours.. He who colors his lips red is liable³⁷⁴In the Babli 95a this is characterized as R. Eliezer’s opinion and is not practice since it is only temporary painting.. He who causes bleeding, because of taking away life force at that place³⁸¹Lev. 17:11. This does not refer to slaughter which is mentioned separately in Mishnah 3, but to a non-lethal wound. Babli 75a/b.. He who makes a shape, the first one is liable because of writing and the second one because of dying³⁸²Assuming that the first person draws an outline and the second fills it with color. The Babli 75b notes that if the object is decoration of the vessel, he also is liable because of “hitting with a hammer”.. If he left out a limb and another came and finished it, he is liable because of hitting with a hammer⁷A name for the formal end of any production process.. Wringing and washing are the same category of work. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the dyers in Jerusalem made wringing a separate category of work. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, there are 40 categories of work³⁸³Since it is not listed separately in the Mishnah.. Should we state this? We come to state only items to which everybody agrees.