Deuteronômio 12:3 Referências do Talmudee: Jerusalem Talmud Orlah, Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah, Tractate Sefer Torah & Makkot

“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 leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity¹¹⁵Since they are no longer stones.; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted¹¹⁶For usufruct., but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written (Lev. 14:44): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes¹¹⁷The lime produced by burning limestone. of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down¹¹⁸Since for idolatry the same root implies prohibition of usufruct (Deut. 12:3), including the ashes of holy trees, for the leprous house the root נתץ (Lev. 14:45) must mean the same (cf. Berakhot 7, Note 41)..”

It is written⁸⁹Lev. 26:1., do not make idols for yourselves, statue and stele you shall not erect for yourselves. Is not making the same as erecting? Rebbi Hila said, making is from new; erecting, if it falls down one shall not re-erect it. It is written⁹⁰Deut. 12:3. The verse continues, their statues you shall cut down., you shall tear down their altars and break their steles. From where to apply one to the other? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, it was said to refer to both sides; either breaking, or cutting down, or tearing down for each of them.