Levítico 1:10 Referências do Talmudee: Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim, Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim & Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim

HALAKHAH: So far if he robbed the real estate. If he robbed a vine and planted it, does he not owe money²²If the owners gave up hope to recover the robbed object, the robber becomes the legal owner. The transfer of ownership imposes on the robber the obligation to pay for it. Before giving up hope, the owners could have sued for the return of the stolen object; after they gave up hope but the circumstances changed and made a suit possible, they can only sue for damages. The next paragraph will make clear that this is the situation here.? But the rabbis have a problem: do commandments follow the rules of Temple sacrifices²³These rules are stricter than those governing other obligations. or not? If you say they are like Temple sacrifices he may not bring²⁴Sifra Wayiqra Paršata 5(2), Babli Baba Qama 67b: Lev. 1:10, “If his sacrifice is from the flock” implies that robbed animals cannot become sacrifices.; if you say they are not like Temple sacrifices he may bring. Everybody agrees that from a worshipped tree which was damaged²⁵If one of the prior worshippers of the tree damages it in a manner inadmissible in pagan worship, the tree loses is idolatrous status and becomes profanely usable. But if at any time it was forbidden for the Jewish altar it remains forbidden since in Neh. 10:35 the supply of firewood for the altar is called a “sacrifice.” one cannot bring logs for the altar fire. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, may he take a lulav²⁶The palm frond used on the Holiday of Tabernacles. In the Babli, Avodah Zarah 47a, this is R. Simeon ben Laqish’s question in the interpretation of Rav Dimi. In his interpretation, the rules of sacrifices require that anything inadmissible at some time is always inadmissible; clearly this is not the case for any non-sacrificial use. from it? Do commandments follow the rules of Temple sacrifices or not? If you say they are like Temple sacrifices he may not take; if you say they are not like Temple sacrifices he may take. It is obvious that he may take a lulav from it²⁷The Babli (Mo‘ed Qaṭan 26b) makes a difference between things used for commandments (such as a lulav) and holy things (such as a Torah scroll). Things used for commandments may be discarded after use; holy things which can no longer be used must be buried just as damaged Temple stones must be buried. It is possible that the Yerushalmi agrees with this distinction. and commandments are not like Temple sacrifices. May he bring First Fruits? According to Rebbi Jehudah²⁸The disagreement between R. Jehudah and the Sages is in Mishnah 3:10. who compares them to country sacred food²⁹Sacred food to be consumed by the Cohen in purity anywhere in the Land, i. e., heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah. he may bring; according to the rabbis who compare them to Temple sacrifices he may not bring.

⁸⁰This paragraph also appears in Šeqalim2:4 (ש). The readings of the editio princeps of the Babli with Yerushalmi Šeqalim are noted (שׁ); those of interest of the very shortened Munich ms. of the Babli as (M). The version of Šeqalim in the Babli is characterized by much babylonized spelling; there is an addition in Babylonian Aramaic directly taken from the parallel in the Babli Zevaḥim 8b-9a. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba⁸¹He is the father of Samuel (Babli Zevaḥim 8b), head of the school of Nahardea in the generation of transition from Tannaim to Amoraim. He reports a Babylonian tradition. enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed⁸²An offering in the Temple declared as Pesaḥ on any day other than the 14th of Nisan automatically is for well-being. Therefore animals dedicated as Pesaḥ but not needed on the 14th, at nightfall of the 15th automatically become dedicated well-being offerings. into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says⁸³Lev. 3:6., and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering [from small cattle]⁸⁴Scribe’s text, incorrectly deleted by corrector and missing in printed editions but confiirmed by ש. K is lacunary at this point.? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering⁸⁵Which never comes from large cattle.? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. [Rebbi Abun objected,]⁸⁴Scribe’s text, incorrectly deleted by corrector and missing in printed editions but confiirmed by ש. K is lacunary at this point. everywhere you are saying that מִן is to include, but here you are saying that מִן is to exclude⁸⁶The text is difficult since it is standard rabbinic interpretation to consider prefix mem or מִן as privative, excluding certain categories (cf. Šabbat 7 Note 26, Ševuot 1:2 Note 75, Bava Mesiaˋ 4:8 Note 122, Nazir5:4 Note 105). Also in the next sentence, R. Mana gives the interpretation that here מִן is privative. On the other hand, the testimony of K, M, and the scribe’s text of ש do not permit emendation. It seems that here “every where” is derogatory, meaning Babylonian. The sequence of arguments leads to a contradiction. Abba bar Abba treats מִן as inclusive, R. Abun bar Cahana as exclusive. R. Mana explains that מִן always is partitive; automatic switch to well-being offerings is possible only for sacrifices that totally correspond to the declaration צאן, i. e., both sheep and goats, male and female.? Rebbi Mana said, it excludes it, since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written,⁸⁷Lev. 1:10. and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, [but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten.]⁸⁸Addition by the corrector from ש, confirmed by K. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices⁸⁹The latter category includes both elevation and reparation sacrifices.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that you are saying, Pesaḥ is changed⁸²An offering in the Temple declared as Pesaḥ on any day other than the 14th of Nisan automatically is for well-being. Therefore animals dedicated as Pesaḥ but not needed on the 14th, at nightfall of the 15th automatically become dedicated well-being offerings. into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi [Il]la said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan : And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering⁸³Lev. 3:6.; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts⁹⁰If the animal dedicated as Pesaḥ is used against the rules for something other than a well-being offering, do the rules of the other kind apply or is it disqualified and no rules of intent apply.? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day⁹¹This being forbidden certainly disqualifies.. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul⁹²If the animal still is a sacrifice, now under the rules of elevation sacrifices, the intention to perform any required action out of its prescribed time-frame generates piggul, which is a deadly sin causing extirpation.. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

⁸⁶This and the next paragraph also appear in Pesaḥim5:1, Notes 80–97, where also the readings of B are noted (ג is unreadable or lacunary for the present paragraph.) Only the most necessary notes are given here, the remainder should be consulted there. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says⁸⁷Lev. 3:6., and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering from small cattle? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]⁸⁸The text is difficult since it is standard rabbinic interpretation to consider prefix mem or מִן as privative, excluding certain categories (cf. Šabbat7 Note 26, Ševuot1:2 Note 75, Bava Meṣia`4:8 Note 122, Nazir5:4 Note 105). Also in the next sentence, R. Mana gives the interpretation that here מִן is privative. On the other hand, the testimony of the scribe’s two texts, the Genizah fragment available for Pesaḥim, and the Munich ms. of Šeqalim do not permit emendation. It seems that here “every where” is derogatory, meaning Babylonian. The sequence of arguments leads to a contradiction. Abba bar Abba treats מִן as inclusive, R. Abun bar Cahana as exclusive. R. Mana explains that מִן always is partitive; automatic switch to well-being offerings is possible only for sacrifices that totally correspond to the declaration צאן, i. e., both sheep and goats, male and female.. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes]⁸⁹Corrector’s addition from B. since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written,⁹⁰Lev. 1:10. and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that they are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Illa said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering⁸⁷Lev. 3:6.; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts⁹¹If the animal dedicated as Pesaḥ is used against the rules for something other than a well-being offering, do the rules of the other kind apply or is it disqualified and no rules of intent apply?? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul⁹²If the animal still is a sacrifice, now under the rules of elevation sacrifices, the intention to perform any required action out of its prescribed time-frame is piggul, a deadly sin causing extirpation.. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified⁹³If the animal is disqualified and not under the rule of any kind of sacrifice, the illegitimate intent is inconsequential..