Deuteronômio 16:11 Referências do Talmudee: Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah, Jerusalem Talmud Peah, Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah & Kiddushin

It was stated⁷⁸Tosephta 1:4; cf. Babli 6a/b.: “There is about the sacrifice of appearance what does not apply to the festival sacrifice, and about the festival sacrifice what does not apply to the sacrifice of appearance. For the sacrifice of appearance is totally for the High⁷⁹Everything is burned on the altar; there is no part even for the Cohanim.; this does not apply to the festival sacrifice. The festival sacrifice was in use before the Word⁸⁰The theophany of Sinai. and after the Word; this does not apply to the sacrifice of appearance.” Was the festival sacrifice in use before the Word⁸¹Before the Giving of the Torah there could be no commandments and no commanded sacrifices.? The language of festival sacrifice was in use before the Word⁸²Ex. 5:1.: send My people that they present Me with festival sacrifices in the desert.“⁷⁸Tosephta 1:4; cf. Babli 6a/b. And joy applies to matters which are his property and matters which are others’ property; whether matters usually used for the purpose or matters not usually used for the purpose⁸³One may enjoy the holiday being invited to somebody else’s well-being sacrifice, and even with meat from an animal not admissible as sacrifice.. But those apply only to his own property and matters usually used for the purpose.” Rebbi Yose said, and why do we not say, anybody liable for a sacrifice of appearance is liable for joy but there are those liable for joy but not liable for a sacrifice of appearance: “Women are liable for joy but not liable for a sacrifice of appearance⁸⁴Tosephta 1:4; obviously not part of R. Yose’s baraita text.”? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, and you shall enjoy⁸⁵“Enjoyment” of the meat of well-being sacrifices is mentioned without any reference to holidays in Deut. 12:12, and as a requirement of the holidays in Deut. 16:11,14,15., even from a butcher shop⁸⁶Latin macellum. According to his argument, the duty to eat meat on holidays is biblical also after the destruction of the Temple when sacrificial meat is not available.. Rebbi Eleazar said, joy is mentioned here and joy in mentioned there. Since the joy mentioned there refers to well-being sacrifices so also joy mentioned here refers to well-being sacrifices⁸⁷The comparison of the verses quoted in Note 85 shows that the biblical requirement is intrinsically connected with well-being sacrifices and therefore became moot with the destruction of the Temple.. Rav Ḥuna ate (deflated things) [simply]⁸⁸The corrector considered the scribe’s otherwise unknown פשש as scribal error and replaced it with a known word with similar letters. The scribe may have intended a word like Arabic פסּ “to deflate”. all seven days⁸⁹Following R. Eleazar he did not accept the duty to eat meat on a holiday as scriptural and ate simple fare during the holiday week..

A¹¹⁶This and the following stories illustrate the principle that if one knows the recipient of charity one has to support him so that his prior dignity is not impaired. family from Nevallat¹¹⁷In Tosephta Peah 4:11, the reading is בית נבלטה, in Sifri Deut. 110,303 בית נבטלה. The best explanation is given by I. Löw; the reference is to a town in Benjamin, Neh. 11:34. in Jerusalem traced its descent from Oman the Yebusite¹¹⁸The last king of the Yebusites who sold the Temple site to David (2Sam. 24:20–24, 1Chr. 21:15).. Once the Sages alotted them six hundred talents of gold¹¹⁹The enormous sum of 1’800’000 gold sheqel. In the Tosephta it is 300 gold sheqel (Erfurt manuscript: 600), in the Rome manuscript 600 talents silver gold, a confluence of two versions. The number given in the Yerushalmi also appears in Sifri Deut. 110, but in #303 it is 600 talents of silver. The amount given here probably is an adaptation of the original amount to the hyperinflation of the military anarchy; it would correspond approximately to 1’800 honest gold sheqel. to avoid causing them to leave Jerusalem, since they interpreted “in your gates, in your gates¹²⁰The repetition of “in your gates” in Deut. 26:12, 16:11,14, 14:21,27,29 is taken to include Jerusalem. The verse Deut. 26:12, referring to tithes one has to give to the Levite, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow, so that “they should eat in your gates and be satisfied,” is explained in Sifri Deut. 303: “‘In your gates’ teaches that one may not export tithes from the Land of Israel. They said that a family from Nevallat was in Jerusalem and the Sages alotted them six hundred talents of silver and did not want to permit them to leave Jerusalem.” (Similar in Sifri Deut. 110). In Sifri Deut. 71, the repetition “in your gates, in your gates” is explained as reference to dedicated animals that may be slaughtered outside of Jerusalem; hence, a special inclusion of Jerusalem is needed.,” to include Jerusalem.

HALAKHAH: It is written¹⁴⁶Lev. 23:40, the verse about the lulav and the 4 kinds.: and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices¹⁴⁷The general exhortation to enjoy the holidays (Deut. 16:11,15) is read as referring to the joyous family meals connected with the holiday pilgrimage to the Temple. This interpretation would read the verse as duplicate of the same exhortation in Deut. 16:15.. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of the lulav¹⁴⁸This interpretation reads Lev. 23:40 separate from Deut. 16:15, commanding a lulav festivity in the Temple, “before the Eternal”, in addition to the requirement of taking the lulav on the first day, independent of location. Babli 43a.. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from a word of the Torah, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on basis of a word from the Torah¹⁴⁹It is obvious that instead of “well-being sacrifices” one has to read “lulav”. Since in this case there is a biblical requirement to take the lulav for seven days in the Temple, taking the lulav for seven days has biblical roots, and the statement about Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai makes sense.. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of lulav, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from their words, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on basis of their words. But is there institution after institution¹⁵⁰Here one has to read “well-being sacrifices”. If the verse does not force a 7-day observation of lulav anywhere, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai would have extended a purely customary observation from the Temple to the outside world. Since rabbinic extensions of Biblical prescriptions are legitimate only as “fences around the law”, extending any of these is unnecessary. Therefore Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai must have held that Lev. 23:40 refers to lulav(Note 149). Babli Šabbat11a.?