Deuteronômio 15:20 Referências do Talmudee: Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah & Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

It is written⁸⁷Deut. 15:20, referring to the firstling of animals acceptable on the altar.: Before the Eternal, your God, you shall eat it year by year. A year for itself, and a year for its substitution⁸⁸While it is prohibited to substitute another animal for one that either was dedicated or is automatically dedicated (such as the firstling or the tithe animal), the substitution is not invalid but the substituted animal becomes dedicated under the rules applying to the original one (Lev.27:10), but for the substitute the year is counted only from its dedication.. A year for the unblemished and a year for the blemished⁸⁹Since the defective firstling also may not be used for work but must be consumed as profane food, the time limit imposed on the unblemished firstling, one year, also applies to the blemished one. Sifry Deut. 124.. A year for the firstling and a year for sancta⁹⁰A dedicated animal must be sacrificed within one year, even if this year does not comprise three holidays, as explained in the sequel.. Year by year, this teaches that the firstling is eaten for two days⁹¹While for all sacrifices detailed in Lev. the maximum time allowed for consumption is indicated, nothing is stated in this respect for the firstling, whose rules are given in Ex. and Deut. From the double mention of “years” it is inferred that the firstling can be eaten in two different years and therefore also on two different days. Accordingly, it may be eaten on 2 consecutive days and this therefore also is the maximum. Sifry Deut. 125; Babli Bekhorot 27b, Temurah21b. and two years. How is this? If he slaughtered it on the eve of New Year’s day and ate it on the eve of New Year’s day and on New Year’s Day. Rebbi Ismael stated: If it developed [a blemish] on the fifteenth day of its year, he is permitted to keep it after its year another fifteen days. Rebbi Ila said, this implies that a year for the blemished one is not clear⁹²The deduction from the verse is informal support for common practice, not an explicit biblical rule.. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ila: Today⁹³In the absence of a Temple. Babli Bekhorot28a. one is permitted to keep a firstling for four or five years before one shows it to an expert. Where do we hold? If for an unblemished one, it already has been said⁹⁴Since nothing can be done with a male firstling of cattle and sheep than to bring it as a sacrifice and eat it in purity, in the absence of a Temple, by the simple meaning of the verse it has to be kept indefinitely until it develops a blemish. Therefore the only new information of the baraita is that even as blemished animal it can be kept indefinitely, and need not immediately to be certified by a competent authority as blemished and permitted to be slaughtered and consumed.. But if it cannot refer to the unblemished one, let it refer to the blemished. Both for the firstling and for any sancta one transgresses because of holidays without a year, and because of a year without holidays. One understands holidays without year⁹⁵Following the Sages, the sequence of three holidays always is less than a year. Babli 6b.. Year without holidays? There⁹⁶In Babylonia., they said, explain it if it was too young for Passover⁹⁷No animal may be sacrificed younger than 8 days old (Lev. 22:27). If the animal was born shortly before Pesaḥ it becomes a possible sacrifice only later. By the time of the next Pesaḥ, more than a year will have elapsed.. As you are saying there, what is suitable for part of the year is suitable for the year⁹⁸As will be shown in the next paragraph, the year of the firstling is counted from the date of its birth, not the date of its becoming an acceptable sacrifice; disputed by the Babli, 6b/7a., so say here also, what is suitable for part of Passover is suitable for Passover⁹⁹Since the additional sacrifices of a pilgrim to the Temple must be brought during the holiday week, not on the first day, there is no reason to count Passover as valid first holiday in the sequence. Therefore the Babylonian argument is incorrect.. Rebbi Abba Mari said, explain it that the coming Pentecost was on the fifth, it was born on the sixth, and the next Pentecost was on the seventh.¹⁰⁰This presupposes a variable calendar, based on observation of the new moon. Pentecost is the 50th day after the first day of Passover. In the current calendar, where Nisan always has 30 days and Iyar 29, Pentecost is on the 6th of Siwan. If both months have 29 days, it will be on the 7th; if both have 30 days, it will be on the 5th. Babli 6b; cf. Halakhah 4.

“He who shears wool.” If he shore without specification,³⁶¹Both Mishnah 7:2 and 13:1 state that liability is created if one weaves two threads. The minimal length of a thread is defined here as a double siṭ, but in Mishnah 13:4 as one siṭ (a hand-breadth, the width of four thumbs). The text here cannot be changed since “double” is clearly visible in G and is quoted in Or zaruaˋ. what? Let us hear from the following: If one brought out ink, if it was in a reed³⁶²Greek κάλαμος, -ου, m., Latin calamus,- i, m., in order to write two letters, if to correct, enough to correct one letter³⁶³Writing on the Sabbath creates liability if it may make sense, which means that a word may be formed, or at least two letters. But in correcting, changing a single letter may change the meaning of a word. Therefore if the specific intent was for correcting, the general rule (Mishnah 3) is superseded by a more restrictive one. Similarly here, specific intent in shearing may reduce the amount which creates liability; the absence of specific intent cannot reduce it.. There, we have stated³⁶⁴Mishnah Bekhorot 3:3. Slaughter of a wooly animal cannot be made through thick wool since the fleece might deflect or damage the knife, which would make the slaughter invalid and the animal into carcass meat. Therefore it is necessary to clear some area for the slaughter. It is biblically forbidden to shear a firstling (Deut. 15:19). The Mishnah states that tearing out hairs from the animal’s fleece is not shearing.: “He who slaughters the firstling makes space for the dagger on both sides and tears out the hair, but he should not move it from its place. Similarly, he who tears out hair to see a defect³⁶⁵Which would make the firstling secular property of the Cohen, (Deut. 15:20)..” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who tears out hair from a dedicated animal is not liable³⁶⁶As the Sabbath is concerned, this is unprofessional and therefore does not create liability while still being forbidden.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, as they disagreed: If one tears out hair from a dedicated animal, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable³⁶⁷As illegitimate use of dedicated property.; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reasoning inverted? Since they disagreed³⁶⁸The previously recorded disagreement with R. Joḥanan has to be reconciled with the generally accepted Tosephta which follows.. “One who tears out a wing of a bird, who plucks it, and who cuts it is liable under three [categories].³⁶⁹Tosephta 9:20.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they³⁷⁰The two opinions of R. Simeon ben Laqish, that tearing out hairs from a four-legged animal does not create liability but tearing out feathers from a bird does. do not disagree. He who tears out is liable because of shearing; he who plucks out is liable because of wiping clean; he who cuts it is liable because of hitting with a hammer. But it cannot be compared; for a bird which has no shearing, tearing out is its shearing³⁷¹Babli Bekhorot 25a.. But here³⁷²In the case of the four-legged animal. he is not liable unless he sheared. You should know that this is so since it was stated: If he tore from a dead animal he is liable since tearing is its shearing.