Talmud sobre Êxodo 28:38

The diadem. Some want to say, about blasphemers⁹⁶This explanation is not in the Babli sources, Note 77.. Some want to say, about insolent ones. He who says about blasphemers is understandable, since it is written⁹⁷1Sam. 17:49. the stone sank in his forehead, and it is written⁹⁸Ex. 28:38., it shall be on his forehead permanently. He who says about insolent ones, you had the forehead of a whoring woman⁹⁹Jer.3:3..

HALAKHAH: “But about where there is no knowledge,” etc. Halakhah 5: “Rebbi Simeon used to say,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah is and one goat’s he-goat sin offering for the Eternal¹²⁶Num. 28:15, the sacrifice of the Day of the New Moon. (The verse is quoted not quite correctly.) The root חטא in pā`al means “to sin” but in pi`ēl “to cleanse, to restitute, to purify.” The word חַטָּאת “purification” can also mean “sin” (Ex. 34:9). Here it is interpreted in both senses. Babli 9a.. This he-goat atones for a sin known only to the Eternal¹²⁷In Sifry Deut. 145, the example given is that of a an unknown grave which makes everybody stepping over it impure; the impure person never could know of his impurity.. I have not only the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon; from where the he-goats of the holidays? Rebbi Ze`ira said, and a he-goat<sup>128</sup>In all occurrences (Note 123) the sentence starts with וּ which also could have been left out. This is read as referring to the first case. Babli 9b., the copula adds to the prior subject. Rebbi Ze`ira and¹²⁹Probably “and” should be replaced by a comma. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He gave it to you to lift the sins of the congregation¹³⁰Lev. 10:17, referring to the inauguration of the Tabernacle which was on the first of Nisan. On that day, three purification sacrifices were offered. 1° A calf, special to this day. 2° A he-goat for the Day of the New Moon. 3° A he-goat by the chief of the tribe of Jehudah (Num. 7:16). The verse does not spell out to which of the three it refers.
In the Babli 9b, the entire argument is quoted as explanation of R. Simeon’s statement; also quoted Zevaḥim 101b.. Where do we hold? If about Naḥshon’s he-goat, it atoned for his tribe. If about the he-goat of the Day of (Atonement)¹³¹Read: Inauguration., there is nothing similar in later generations¹³²The reference is to the calf (Note 129, 1°) which only in this case served as public purification offering; in all other cases the sacrifice is a he-goat. Since the verse is in the singular, it follows that only one purification offering was burnt; the other two were eaten [Sifra Šemini Pereq 2(2)]. It is characterized as “given to lift the sin of the congregation”; this is asserted only of the New Moon’s Day he-goat. It follows that the calf of the Inauguration was particular for the Sanctuary and the priests, Naḥshon’s for his tribe.. But we must deal with the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon. What about it? It is said here “lifting sin” and it is said there “lifting sin”, Aaron shall lift the sin of the sancta”¹³³Ex. 28:38.. Since there it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers, also here it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers¹³⁴It is explicitly stated in the verse that the High Priest’s diadem is only effective to cure unknown disabilities of sacrifices, not of humans. In the Babli, Menaḥot 25a, this is the final answer by the fifth Cent. Rav Ashi after a lengthy discussion which also quotes R. Zera (Ze`ira) with a completely different suggestion which is rejected.. What did you see to say, “for the pure person who ate impure”, maybe we should say for the impure person who ate pure? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Jehudah splits the argument of Rebbi Meїr; Rebbi Simeon splits the argument of Rebbi Jehudah<sup>135</sup>R. Jehudah accepts the argument of R. Meїr but excludes the he-goats of the Day of Atonement from the group. R. Simeon accepts the argument of R. Jehudah but excludes the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon.. Rebbi Joḥanan<sup>136</sup>One may conjecture that originally the text read ר״י meaning “R. Jehudah” which was misread by a copyist as “R. Joḥanan”. (In Babli texts, ר״י has both meanings with about the same frequency.) agrees that the he-goat brought inside does not atone; rather it suspends. This parallels Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, he shall make it a purification offering¹³⁷Lev. 16:9. One would have expected the sentence to read וְהִקְרִ֤יב אַֽהֲרֹן֙ אֶת־הַשָּׂעִ֔יר אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָלָ֥ה עָלָי֛ו הַגּוֹרָ֖ל לַֽײ לַחָטָּאת. Then חַטָּאת would have referred to the he-goat and meant “purification offering.” But the clause וְעָשָׂה֭וּ חַטָּֽאת “he turns it into חַטָּאת” defines the word as “unintentional sin.” The he-goat whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary turns intentional into unintentional sins.. He fixed it for suspension, that it could not be changed¹³⁸It cannot be used for any other purpose. If the companion scapegoat would die before it is slaughtered, it could not be used for any other purpose; it must be sent grazing until it develops a bodily defect or becomes too old to be used as a sacrifice, then be sold and its value used to buy other sacrifices. Sifra Aḥare Pereq 2(5)..

Beloved are proselytes [by God], for [Scripture] everywhere uses the same epithets of them as of Israel; [61b] as it is stated, But thou, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen.⁷Isa. 41, 8. Jacob is here interpreted as ibid. XLIV, 5, And another shall call himself by the name of Jacob—these are the proselytes of righteousness (cf. towards the end of this tractate). The order of the quotations in V is confused. The term ‘love’ is applied to Israel, as it is stated, I have loved you, saith the Lord,⁸Mal. 1, 2. and the term ‘love’ is applied to proselytes, as it is stated, And He loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.⁹Deut. 10, 18. Israel are called ‘servants’, as it is stated, For unto Me the children of Israel are servants,¹⁰Lev. 25, 55. V omits the quotation. and proselytes are called ‘servants’, as it is stated, To be His servants.¹¹Isa. 56, 6. The term ‘acceptable’ is used of Israel, as it is stated, And it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord,¹²Ex. 28, 38. and the term ‘acceptable’ is used of proselytes, as it is stated, Their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be acceptable upon Mine altar.¹³Isa. 56, 7. The term ‘keeping’ is applied to Israel, as it is stated, The Lord is thy keeper, the Lord is thy shade upon thy right hand,¹⁴Ps. 121, 5. and the term ‘keeping’ is applied to proselytes, as it is stated, The Lord preserveth the strangers.¹⁵ibid. CXLVI, 9. The term ‘ministering’ is applied to Israel, as it is stated, But ye shall be named the priests of the Lord, men shall call you the ministers of our God,¹⁶Isa. 61, 6. and the term ‘ministering’ is applied to proselytes, as it is stated, Also the aliens, that join themselves to the Lord, to minister unto Him.¹⁷ibid. LVI, 6.
Beloved are proselytes seeing that our father Abraham did not circumcise himself when he was twenty or thirty years of age, but when he was ninety-nine years old;¹⁸Cf. Gen. 17, 24. since if he had circumcised himself when he was twenty or thirty years old, no Gentile would have become a proselyte when he had passed the age of twenty or thirty. The Holy One, blessed be He, kept putting it off¹⁹The verb has fallen out of V. until he had reached ninety-nine years, so as not to close the door in the face of proselytes, [and to allow more days and years so as to increase the reward of those who do His will, as it is stated, The Lord was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to make the teaching great and glorious].²⁰Isa. 42, 21. The passage within brackets is added by MS.K. and H.
Our father Abraham called himself a ger, as it is stated, I am a stranger [ger] and a sojourner with you.²¹Gen. 22, 4. Similarly David, king of Israel, called himself a ger, as it is stated, For I am a stranger [ger] with Thee,²²Ps. 39, 13. and likewise it states, For we are strangers before Thee.²³1 Chron. 29, 15.
Beloved is the Land of Israel because it makes proselytes fit [to be received]. If a man says in the Land of Israel, ‘I am a proselyte’, he is accepted at once, but outside the Land of Israel he is not accepted unless his witnesses are with him. Beloved is the Land of Israel because it atones for iniquities and transgressions, as it is stated, And the inhabitant shall not say: ‘I am sick’, the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity.²⁴Isa. 33, 24.
And so you find in the four classes that stand before the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is stated, One shall say: ‘I am the Lord’s’; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord, and surname himself by the name of Israel.²⁵ibid. XLIV, 5. One shall say: ‘I am the Lord’s’—this alludes to one who belongs wholly to the Omnipresent and has no admixture of sin. Another shall call himself by the name of Jacob—this alludes to the proselytes of righteousness.²⁶A term to denote the genuine and complete convert. Another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord—this alludes to those who repent. And surname himself by the name of Israel—this alludes to those who fear Heaven.

If it comes in impurity of the officiants⁹⁰The case mentioned in the Mishnah, that the people were pure but all officiating priests impure.? How is that? If defective persons⁹¹It could have stated, “a pure non-priest”. The statement seems to imply that a priest with a bodily defect, who is barred from officiating (Lev. 21:16–24), still is permitted to act as slaughterer in the Temple. Here it is presumed that he is pure. slaughtered and pure⁹²Obviously one has to read: impure. (K is not legible at this point.) The impure (by the impurity of the dead) priest does not come into direct contact with the sacrificial animal. While the blood collected in the vessel which he holds will be impure, it does not make the carcass impure through the stream of blood falling into his vessel. ones poured. Rebbi Hila said, any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten⁷⁵Lev. 7:19., but here it was not touched by anybody impure. The meat, anybody pure may eat meat⁷⁵Lev. 7:19.; there are pure ones available to eat it⁹³The people, as stated in the Mishnah.. Rebbi Zeˋira: Since Pesaḥ made in impurity is eaten, [this one is as if brought in impurity]⁹⁴Since the people are pure, the argument of R. Hoshaia is superfluous.. And where was this⁹⁵The source of R. Zeˋira’s argument. said? Rebbi Samuel said, Rebbi Zeˋira asked: If it comes with impurity of the blood⁹⁶The carcass is pure, the priests are pure, but the blood has become impure. Since only the blood pumped out at the moment of slaughter is acceptable on the altar (Chapter 5, Note 234), it cannot be replaced., what is done? Since one does not permit him to pour, is it as if brought in impurity? Or since if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable, is it as if not brought in impurity? Let us hear from the following which was said by [Rebbi Elazar in the name of ⁸⁷Reading of K. Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices⁹⁷Ex. 28:38. Explained in more detail in the Babli 16b, Yoma 7a, Zevaḥim 23a., the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers⁹⁸The diadem will not cover deficiencies in either the owners or the officiants of a sacrifice. Babli Zevaḥim 23b.. He separated between what is offered on behalf of an individual and what is offered on behalf of the public. If offered for an individual, if he has another one⁹⁹Another animal to offer.
The following text in brackets is a corrector’s addition which by the concurrent testimony of the original scribe and K should be deleted., one tells him, bring! If not, [one does not permit him to pour the blood;] if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable. The sacrificers for an individual, whether he has or does not have, [it was not made acceptable. If offered for the public, if he has another one, one tells him, bring! If not, one permits him to pour the blood a priori. The sacrificers for the public, whether he has or does not have,] it was made acceptable.

MISHNAH: If blood was poured of a Pesaḥ when later it became known that it was impure, the diadem makes acceptable⁸⁰The golden diadem worn by the High Priest, whose object is to carry away the iniquities of the sacrifices offered by the Children of Israel; Ex. 28:37.. An impurity of the body⁸¹The body of the offerer. the diadem does not make acceptable since they said that for the nazir and the offerer of the Pesaḥ the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body. If the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss⁸²Impurity buried in the ground which previously was totally unknown and is only recently uncovered. Since it is impossible to guard against this kind of impurity there can be no penalty for “tent impurity” of this kind., the diadem makes acceptable.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ²¹⁵But since the individual must make a Second Pesaḥ which the public never makes, the original argument of R. Simeon ben Laqish is incorrect.. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed²¹⁶The statement of Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:1 seems redundant.! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal¹⁴⁷He is impure, but can become free of impurity by immersion in a miqweh, which will make him pure for sancta at sundown. This kind of impurity does not prevent a person to be counted in a group eating the Pesaḥ in purity; accepting the person in the count of the impure is questionable; Babli 80a, 80b.. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal²¹⁷And from impurity of a corpse one has to wait for seven days while of a dead crawling animal one may immerse himself immediately.? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea²¹⁸Who are impure until sundown after immediate immersion in water, Lev. 15:4,7.. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea¹⁵²A person who suffers a single episode of gonorrhea is impure for the day and can be purified by immersion in a miqweh. If he has two episodes in at most two consecutive days, he is impure for seven days; after seven days in remission he can be purified by immersion in a miqweh. After three episodes he still needs seven days in remission but then is still prohibited sancta unless on the eighth day he brings a couple of birds as sacrifice to the Temple. A sufferer from gonorrhea who is impure for seven days, on the seventh day is a questionable candidate for Pesaḥ since if he suffers another episode he has to start all over again.. “One immersed on this day¹⁹⁸Who is no longer impure but barred from sacral acts until sundown; Lev. 22:7.,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead)^218*The text in parentheses has to be deleted even though it is confirmed by K. if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement²⁰⁰A person healed from skin disease or gonorrhea who needs not only immersion in water and waiting for sundown but is excluded from sacral rites until be bring a purifying sacrifice, Lev. 14:1–32 for skin disease, 15:14–15 for the sufferer from gonorrhea.,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices⁹⁷Ex. 28:38. Explained in more detail in the Babli 16b, Yoma 7a, Zevaḥim 23a., the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers⁹⁸The diadem will not cover deficiencies in either the owners or the officiants of a sacrifice. Babli Zevaḥim 23b.. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea²¹⁹Since gonorrhea causes impurity only in humans, the impurity cannot be the victim’s.. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it²²⁰The only cause for Pesaḥ in impurity is the impurity of the dead. in impurity.