Вайикра 2:6 Связанные отрывки

It was stated⁷In order to prove that the adulterer is punished by the bitter water just as the adulteress is., בוא ובה⁸A copyist’s error makes this expression unintelligible. It must read ובא ובה. Than means that instead of וּבָאוּ בָהּ “they will come into her” (v. 27), the final vaw is transferred from the end of the first word to the beginning of the second to read וּבָא וּבָהּ “it will come, and into her”, implying that the water will come into somebody and into her, establishing that the presumed adulterer can also be checked out by the water. The technique of transferring letters is accepted not only by the Yerushalmi (also Nazir 5:1, 43d line 67; Horaiot 1:3, 46a, line 24) but possibly also in the Babli (Yoma 48a, Baba batra 111b, Zebaḥim 25a, Bekhorot 44b).
(Such an argument is quite impossible in a paleo-Hebrew text where the words are separated by a physical divider. The technique of moving letters from the end of one word to the beginning of the following, so much in fashion in modern criticism, presupposes that a change occured at a late time when there were no longer any paleo-Hebrew texts in use.). Is that written? It follows what Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from its beginning to its end⁹It really should be “from end to beginning”.. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. “You have to pour oil on.” You have to pour oil on a flour offering, to subject all flour offerings to pouring¹⁰Lev. 1:6: “You have to break it into little pieces and pour oil over it; [because] it is a flour offering”, speaking of a pan-fried offering. For some flour offerings it is only specified that oil has to be included, or that oil has to be put on it. From this verse one concludes that “putting on” or “mixing” means “pouring oil over the flour”. The argument here proposes to read וְיָצַקְתָּ שֶׁמֶן מִנְחָ֑ה instead of וְיָצַקְתָּ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁ֑מֶן מִנְחָה הִֽיא. This is based on the teaching of R. Aqiba who disregards masoretic accents in all cases (cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale NJ 1995, pp. 306–307) but in the Babli (cf. Note 8) is strongly opposed by Rava who objects to applying a surgeon’s knife to a verse (cf. the explanations of R. Ḥananel in ‘Arukh, s. v. גרע and Rashbam in Baba batra 111b, s. v. אלא.).

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows his father’s method: If somebody dedicated unblemished animals for the upkeep of the Temple, he violates a positive commandment⁵³Lev. 27:9.. Why also a prohibition? The verse says: “The Eternal spoke to Moses לאמר”⁵⁴Lev. 27:1. It is assumed that this heading applies also to the paragraph Lev. 27:9–34 since v. 9 starts with a connecting ו.: a prohibition was pronounced⁵⁵“He said ‘no’ ”. The underlying pronunciation of לאמר cannot be recovered from the indications given here., the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi was sitting and studying the rule that “a firstling cannot be substituted” when Bar Pedaiah’s father was passing by. Rebbi saw him, and said, do I know what I should say here, “the Eternal spoke to Moses לאמר,” could one explain the words of Rebbi Jehudah? Is it written thus? ⁵⁶Soṭah 5:1 (ס), explained there in Notes 8–10, Horaiot 1:3 (ה). It follows what Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from its beginning to its end. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word⁵⁷In the application here, the word is split by duplication of a letter, לאמר as אמר לא.. “You have to pour oil on.” You have to pour oil on a flour offering, to subject all flour offerings to pouring.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, “of a subject,” not the entire subject. Rebbi Hila said, “of the commandments”, not entire commandments¹⁰³In Lev. 4:13, R. Hizqiah reads דָּבָר וְנֶעֱלַם as וְנֶעֱלַם מִדָּבָר, presupposing a script which does not differentiate between regular and final mem. R. Hila’s comment is really unnecessary since מִכָּל־מִצְוֹת already means “of any commandments” but not entire commandments. In all situations, prefix mem is read as partitive, some but not all; cf. Nazir 5:4 Note 105.. ¹⁰⁴The following text also is found in Sotah 5:1, explained in Notes 8–10, Nazir5:1 Note 56. Is that written? As Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from the beginning of the paragraph to its end. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. You have to pour oil on it, it is a flour offering, to include all flour offerings for pouring¹⁰⁵Sifra Wayyiqra 1 Pereq 12 on Lev.2:6. The ms. text follows the argument of Sifra while B reproduces the text of Sotah and Nazir. The argument of Sifra has no connection with the theories of RR. Johanan and Jeremiah; it is a straightforward reading of the verse. Since it is stated that one has to pour oil on the bread crumbs because it is a flour-offering, it follows that a flour-offering requires pouring oil over it unless it be explicitly excluded as in the purification offering of v. 5:11..