Вайикра 5:14 Ссылки в Талмуде: Jerusalem Talmud Sotah, Jerusalem Talmud Horayot, Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat & Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin

HALAKHAH: “A preliminarily married woman or one who waits for her brother-in-law,” etc. Why can he not make her drink? It is a decision of the verse: “The man shall bring his wife to the Cohen¹⁰Lev. 5:15. A man can bring his wife only if he is living with her..” Then he should not be able to declare his jealousy¹¹If “his wife” in this paragraph means only the definitively married one, the entire procedure should be impossible for the preliminarily married woman.! The Torah said, “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,” “and he declared his jealousy to his wife,¹²Lev. 5:14; if the meaning of “his wife” were constant in this verse, the second clause should have read “and he declared his jealousy to her.” The woman who is a wife but not a wife in the first sense is the preliminarily married one. Therefore, the second mention of “wife” adds the preliminarily married one as object of jealousy.” even if she is only partially his wife.

In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael, who does not refer this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, it is understandable¹⁹This paragraph has no direct connection with the theme of the Mishnah, but is added here to elucidate Lev. 4:27. Since our halakhic Midrashim are all from the school of R. Aqiba, we have to accept the occasional indications of the Yerushalmi on the interpretations of the school of R. Ismael. For him, the verses 4:27–28 detail the conditions on which a private person is permitted and obligated to bring a purification offering.. But what is the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, who refers this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, as we have stated²⁰Mishnah Keritut 6:4; Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Paršetah 3(1), 6(1), Ahare Mot Parašah4(8).
Reparation sacrifices are required (1) for sins against a fellow man after restitution (Lev. 5:20–26; Num. 5:5–10), (2) misappropriation of sancta(Lev.5:14–16), (3) to regain sanctified status after skin disease (Lev. 14). A suspended reparation sacrifice is due if a person suspects that he may have committed an inadvertent sin, without having proof either way. Since the sin is forgiven on the Day of Atonement (with due repentance), such a sacrifice cannot be offered after that day since the scapegoat carries away all iniquities (Lev. 16:21).: From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable? The verse says¹⁸Lev. 4:28. Since he was informed that he failed to commit the sin, he cannot bring a purification sacrifice. His repentance for his sinful intent will be a private matter between him and God., or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring, even after the Day of Atonement. ²¹This copy from the first paragraph has no discernible meaning here. From the following: A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions⁸The quotes are correct in the Yerushalmi text of the Babli editio princeps, but the first of the quotes in the Leiden ms. is a misquote, referring to Lev.4:2 instead of 4:27. The basic text is in Sifra Wayyiqra Parašah 7(1), referred to in Babli 2b, discussed in detail Šabbat93a.
Chapter 4 in Lev. treats the purification sacrifices for unintentional sin first by the High Priest (vv. 1–12), then the High Court (13–21), then a chief, identified in Mishnah 3:3 as a king (22–26), and finally by a commoner (27–35). V. 27 reads: If one person of the populace transgresses inadvertently, by acting on one prohibitions of the Eternal, and feels guilt. It is noted that the sentence seems to be unnecessarily wordy. Why does it not say simply, “if somebody inadvertently transgresses a prohibition of the Eternal”? The additional words must have a meaning; they describe restrictions. In Babli Šabbat93a one derives from the insistence that one person commit the sin that a violation of a commandment cannot be prosecuted if committed by two persons acting in common, so that no single person commits a punishable act but the combined result is a clear violation,. Such a violation cannot be atoned for by a purification sacrifice. It also is clear that only acts are punishable.
In the context here the additional terms are interpreted to mean that only a person acting on his own is required to offer a purification sacrifice; this excludes one who is told by a religious authority that his act is permitted.: the person depending on himself is liable, {but one dependent}⁹It is a generally recognized principle that a double restriction is an addition and a double addition a restriction (Peah 6:9 Note 154, Yebamot 12:1 Note 10, Sotah9:2 Note 63, Roš Haššanah 1:1 56a l.58, Megillah 4:4 75b l.14; Babli Megillah23b, Yoma 43a, Bava qamma 15b, Bava batra 15a, Sanhedrin 15a,44b,66a, Makkot 9b, Ševuot 7b, Menahot 9b,67a, Hulin 132a.) The principle is extended here to read that any even number of restrictions (additions) is an addition (restriction) while any odd number of restrictions (additions) is a restriction (addition); cf. Rashi in Sanhedrin 15a s. v. חמשה. on the Court is not liable.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals⁵³The first opinion is the teaching of R. Aqiba in the Mishnah, the second is ascribed to R. Aqiba in the Babli, Šabbat 83a.. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But concerning the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances⁵⁴The full text of Is. 30:22, which is the base of R. Aqiba’s argument, reads: You will defile the cover of your silver statues and the clothing of your golden casts; you shall throw it away like feeling miserable, you shall call it excrement. Therefore the reference of “feeling miserable”, which is the description of a female period, refers to appurtenances only. The second version of the position of R. Aqiba seems untenable.? You will defile the coating of your silver gods and the clothing of your molten gold. Explain it if they were engraved on its body. Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself⁵⁵The statue and its ornamental vestments were two separate objects of worship. Either explanation is possible., similar to what is written, Gideon turned it into an ephod⁵⁶Jud. 8:27.. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. But did we not state: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal⁵⁷Mishnah Avodah zarah 3:8. Since this sentence in the Mishnah precedes the statement of R. Aqiba who imposes the impurity of niddah also on the stones which form the shell of the house of worship but are not the object of worship.”? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then built it up. But did we not state “there are three houses”⁵⁸Mishnah Avodah zarah 3:9. Only a house originally built as a temple is permanently forbidden; all others can be cleansed by removing the idol and all installations and ornamentations made for it. How could one decree severe impurity which can be easily eliminated?? Explain it if he worshipped the house itself and then renovated it, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden⁵⁹Rav answers that even a house not built for worship becomes permanently forbidden as if it had been built as a pagan temple, if itself was worshipped. Babli 47b, Meˋilah 20a.. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does commit larceny with it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, about this the rabbis disagree. For him who says that he forbade it one may commit larceny with it, but for him who says that he does not forbid it, one does not commit larceny with it⁶⁰One compares the rules concerning a pagan temple with those of a house dedicated to the Temple (Lev. 27:14–15). Improper use of dedicated things is larceny which must be expiated by a sacrifice and payment of a fine, (Lev. 5:14–16). Just as real estate cannot become forbidden by idolatry, larceny by improper use of dedicated objects does not apply to real estate. If a house is considered real estate, it cannot become forbidden by worship, and its improper use while in the possession of the Temple cannot trigger a fine for larceny. If it is not considered real estate since the building materials were movables before being used, but it can become forbidden and improper use can trigger the fine.? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it.⁶¹Mishnah Parah 5:7. The ashes of the Red Cow, used to purify a person from the impurity of the dead, must be strewn on flowing water in a vessel (Num. 19:17). A vessel is movable; therefore a trough hewn into the rock is not a vessel. The water flowing from the source into the trough becomes standing water. Therefore it may be used neither (1) to fill a vessel for the ashes, nor (2) to put some ashes in the water, “to sanctify it”, nor (3) to sprinkle the water on impure persons to purify them.
In addition, a corpse in a “tent” makes everything in the tent impure including the contents of vessels whose cover is not tightly fastened (Num. 19:15). Since the trough is not a vessel, if it is under one roof with a corpse it only needs to be covered but the cover does not have to be fastened.
A miqweh (ritual bath) has to contain 40 seah of water. It becomes invalid if 3 log (⅛ seah) of water from a vessel is poured into it before it has reached the level of 40 seah. If the trough is not a vessel, its water cannot invalidate the miqweh. On the other hand, if the trough was a vessel before it was fastened in the rock, it can be used for the ashes of the red cow, and its water will disqualify the miqweh.
Since a house was not a vessel before being connected to the ground, it should be considered real estate and not be subject to prohibition because of worship.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it⁶²A vessel which is permanently fixed to the ground remains a vessel and can become forbidden.. Then not if he fixed it and after that excavated it⁶³A piece of loose rock which was cemented to the ground and then a trough was hewn from it does not become a vessel. Then why should a house become forbidden by being worshipped since it becomes a house only after being connected to the ground?. Is this house not as if he excavated it and after that combined it? What does Rav do with it? He explains that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them⁶⁴It is true that a finished house not built as a temple cannot become forbidden. But if the finished stones for a stone building were worshipped before being cemented in the house they already are forbidden and do not become permitted by use as building blocks.. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it in its entirety it is permitted according to everybody⁶⁵The statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish and the opposing statement of R. Joḥanan only refer to situations where it is not clear whether the idol can be restored or not.. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of stones”⁶⁶Mishnah Avodah zarah 3:10.? Explain it that he worshipped every single stone and then builds with them⁶⁷Then each individual stone remains forbidden; there is no contradiction to the Mishnah.. Even with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish this does not disagree, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted⁶⁸Babli Meˋilah 20a.. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it in its entirety it is forbidden according to everybody, and Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, if they remain in their place is this not as if in the future he can restore it in its entirety? And these remain at their place. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, one who worships a house makes it forbidden⁵⁹Rav answers that even a house not built for worship becomes permanently forbidden as if it had been built as a pagan temple, if itself was worshipped. Babli 47b, Meˋilah 20a., a tree he does not make forbidden. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of Ashera⁶⁹This refers to a holy tree which is worshipped as Ashera (Mishnah Avodah zarah 3:11) but no idol is found buried under it. Then as connected to the ground it should not be part of the real estate and not be forbidden. It becomes permanently forbidden only if it was planted as a holy shoot.”? Explain it that he worshipped a vine and then planted it.