Бамидбар 19:2 Ссылки в Талмуде: Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah, Jerusalem Talmud Yoma, Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot & Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

HALAKHAH: “One does not put up animals in hostelries of Gentiles,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jonah⁵Unfortunately G is very lacunary here; therefore its readings are not given after the Hebrew text. The Halakhah starts: “R. Ze‘urah, R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, R. ..… R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, explain it …” There is no reason to mention the sixth generation R. Abba III and the fifth generation R. Jonah who later disagrees with the statement if already it was attributed to the second generation R. Yose ben Ḥanina.: explain it⁶The Mishnah which forbids to put up unsupervised animals in the stable of a Gentile hostelry makes travel outside Jewish settlements practically impossible. An attribution to R. Eliezer removes the first part of the Mishnah from practice. following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.⁷Mishnah Parah2:1. This refers to the Red Cow (Num. 19) whose ashes are needed to cleanse people from the impurity of the dead. The Cow is not a Temple sacrifice; how far the restrictions imposed on sacrificial animals and the officiating priests apply to the Cow and its officiants are old matters of dispute between Sadducees and Pharisees (Mishnah Parah3:3,7) and among the rabbis themselves. One of the biblical requirements is that the Red Cow never carried a yoke (Num. 19:2). In Mishnah Parah2:1, a first statement of R. Eliezer validates a pregnant Red Cow for the ceremonies; the reason is explained in Mishnah 4 by his student’s R. Illai’s son R. Jehudah, that a bull mounting the Cow on his own cannot be considered making her carrying anything; only copulation by human intervention makes the ox the equivalent of a yoke. The majority rejects the ruling; it considers the Cow and its fetus as two separate beings but v. 19:3 requires the Cow alone to be taken. These restrictions do not apply to ordinary sacrifices. R. Eliezer then forbids buying a Red Cow from Gentiles since a sodomized animal is unfit for the altar; the Sages disagree since without reason one does not suspect that such a thing happened; this would make the Mishnah here unreasonable. (The last generation R. Yose bar Abun even introduces buying a Red Cow from a Gentile into a story about R. Eliezer; Peah1:1 Notes 99 ff., Qiddušin1:7 Notes 607 ff.) Babli 23a.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not explain it according to everybody, following what Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rav: Even one who says it is permitted to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave alone⁸One may not leave the animal alone with a Gentile. Chapter 1:6, Note 165. There the first tradent is R. Jonah himself.. If he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion⁹It is not said what everybody’s opinion is; the corresponding passage in G is in the name of “the rabbis of Caesarea, Giddul bar Benjamin in the name of Rav” but then is missing the conclusion. One has to assume that it was “if he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion the animal remains permitted.”. Rebbi Jeremiah said, let us hear from the following¹⁰Mishnah Ketubot2:9. If she is jailed because of money matters one must assume that she was not raped; if she was condemned to death one must assume that she was raped or consented to sex with her jailers. If a woman can be alone in the custody of Gentiles without being raped, may the same not be assumed of female animals?: “A woman who was jailed by Gentiles.” Rebbi Yose said, it is different for a woman because she usually cries. Think of it if she was mute! She uses sign language. What about it¹¹The argument appears to be cogent.? Explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.” They wanted to say, where do Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree? About the cow, because of “eminence was given to the cow, an adornment was made for the cow.¹²In the Mishnah, not only do the rabbis permit to buy a Red Cow from a Gentile owner, they also allow to buy sacrificial animals from him. The question arises whether R. Eliezer will agree with this or not. The assumption here is that R. Eliezer will agree that sacrifices can be bought from Gentiles but not the Red Cow, whose ceremonies in pharisaic theory were made with many non-scriptural restrictions because of an important difference with Sadducees in matters of ritual purity (Mishnah Parah3:7,8).” But since the rabbis answer to Rebbi Eliezer all sheep of Qedar will be assembled for you¹³Is.60:7. The verse ends: they will be brought on My altar for pleasure. This gives divine sanction for using animals raised by Gentiles for the altar. Since the verse speaks of sacrifices, not of the Red C ow, R. Eliezer must hold that sacrificial animals cannot be bought from Gentiles. The same argument is quoted in the Babli 24a., this says that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees about everything. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does one reply with an argument about the future against one about the past¹⁴The preceding argument does not prove anything in practice since in the next paragraph it will be shown that in messianic times the Gentiles will accept the Torah. Their animals may well be acceptable then but not now.? Rebbi Abin asked, does one reply with an argument when evil inclinations will have disappeared against one when evil inclinations exist¹⁵This is the same argument as before.?

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Bar Qappara understood it from the following. As he did on that day, these are the seven days of initiation. Did the Eternal command, this is burning of the Cow¹¹The priest in charge of burning the Red Cow to produce the ashes which cleanse from the impurity of the dead also had to be separated for seven days (Mishnah Parah 3:1).. It is said here, did the Eternal command, and it is said there¹²Num. 19:2., this is the low of the Torah which the Eternal commanded, saying.” To make, this is the goat of the Day of Atonement¹⁰The dedication ceremony, where Aaron had to bring an atoning sacrifice separate from that for his sons and the people, the other is the Day of Atonement where the same is true.. Or maybe it is the goat of a New Moon? As Rebbi Abba said, to atone for you, an atonement which is like the other. Since the one is atonement valid only through the High Priest, the other also¹³The ceremonies of the Day of Atonement detailed in Lev. 16 refer exclusively to actions by the High Priest. Babli 3b. is atonement through the High Priest.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: In any case of doubt in the public domain, the doubt has to be resolved as pure, but one does not allow to act¹⁵It is stated in Mishnah Ṭahorot4:11 (and made explicit there in Chapters 5–6) that any doubt which arises in the public domain whether something there is impure can be disregarded. Rebbi Joḥanan’s new statement is that even though this is accepted practice, one does not teach this and if a person comes to ask about it, one does not say that the thing is pure.. But did we not state¹⁶Parah11:2. While in general the rules of purity for the water in which ashes of the Red Cow are to be dissolved to purify from the impurity of the dead are very strict, if for heave something is declared pure, such as a doubt of impurity arising in the public domain, it also must be declared pure for the sprinkling water. But if judgment is suspended, i. e., if the heave may not be eaten by a Cohen for perhaps it is impure (when its consumption would be a deadly sin), but it cannot be burned for perhaps it is pure and then the destruction of sancta would be sinful, the water is considered impure and must be poured out on the ground to avoid further pollution.
The expression חַטָּאת biblically refers to the Red Cow (Num.19:2), not to the water which is called מֵי נִדָּה “throwing water”.(Num. 19:20–21).: “Any case of doubt which was declared pure for heave is pure for sprinkling water, and in any case where it remains unresolved for heave the sprinkling water is poured out.” There is nothing unresolved for the sprinkling water; either it is genuinely pure or genuinely impure. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the Mishnah deals with a situation not caused by a sacrifice; what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a situation caused by a sacrifice<sup>17</sup>Since the Mishnah in Parah instructs the carrier of purifying water to disregard any doubt arising in the public domain, the instruction of R. Joḥanan that one does not allow anybody to act on this rule cannot be maintained. The answer is that R. Joḥanan stated his rule only for sancta of the Sanctuary; for all sancta not connected with the Sanctuary it is a publicly stated rule that a doubt in the public domain has to be disregarded.. Everybody agrees that if the person transgresses and acted, it is pure<sup>18</sup>Only if somebody acted as if it was pure and after the fact comes to ask a rabbinic authority, one has to declare the matter as pure even in the Sanctuary. “Everybody” includes R. Aqiba who in certain cases declares such a doubt as causing impurity (Ṭahorot5:1).. The arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted. There<sup>19</sup>Later in this paragraph, when he declares that a nazir, who is forbidden to become impure by the impurity of the dead, must treat a certain case of doubt of impurity as a case of certain impurity., he says, if he transgresses and acted, it is impure. But here he said, if he transgresses and acted, it is pure. There in a private domain, here in the public domain<sup>20</sup>And everybody agrees that in a private domain any doubt of impurity has to be treated as certainty of impurity.. But you could even say, there and here in the public domain<sup>21</sup>Following R. Ze`ira.. The arguments of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish are inverted, the arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted, since they disagreed: A nazir became impure by a grave in the abyss²²A corpse, visibly the victim of an accident not seen by witnesses and found buried in straw or pebbles or other loose material. One may assume that the corpse was buried by the accident, rather than humans. Nazir9:2 Notes 59ff., Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the nazir does not shave, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir has to shave. That is since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of awareness is awareness¹⁰Since we accept the principle of the excluded middle (i.e., a statement is either true or false) a proof that the person could not have been pure both times is proof that he was impure (at least) once. For awareness of impurity no awareness of the exact time of impurity is needed. The Babli (19b) points out that this argument is needed only for variable reparation sacrifices since for purification sacrifices no prior knowledge is required., even if the first was because of a crawling animal and the second by a corpse²³While everybody agrees that the nazir is impure if it should become clear that he passed by after the accident and therefore violated the terms of his vow, in R. Simeon ben Laqish’s view the verse Num. 6:9 clearly requires that the nazir be aware of his impurity at the moment it happens to be required to shave and start the ceremony described there. This makes the rules of nazir parallel to the rules of the variable sacrifice which also presuppose prior knowledge (Horaiot3:3). But for R. Joḥanan, any awareness of any impurity, even a minor one which can be remedied by simple immersion in water, is counted as full awareness of impurity.. ²⁴These two sentences have no place here; they are copied from Horaiot3:3, Notes 76,77. The first before he converted and the second after he converted. The first before he grew two pubic hairs, the second after he grew them.