Вайикра 5:26 Ссылки в Талмуде: Jerusalem Talmud Demai & Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin

HALAKHAH: Also ḥallah? Is ḥallah due for demay? Did we not state⁵Mishnah 1:3. The opinions of Rebbis Joḥanan and Eleazar are detailed in Halakhah 1:3.: “Ḥallah of the unobservant and food containing heave are free from demay.” Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is from the House of Shammai. We have stated accordingly⁶Not in other Tannaitic sources. But in Tosephta Demay 1:28 we read: “Replacements for heave and its fifth {from a layman who ate heave in error, who has to replace it together with a 25% fine, measured from below, Lev.5:16}, the fifths of the fifth {if the layman then took the fifth by error, he has to restitute it with an additional fifth, Lev. 5:26}, the leftover of the ‘omer sacrifice, the two breads {leavened breads for the priests, offered on Pentecost}, the show breads, the leftovers of flour sacrifices, and additions to First Fruits; Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate but the House of Hillel exempt.” It is difficult to make coherent sense of this Tosephta (cf. תוספתא כפשוטה p. 206–207), but the general tenor is that the House of Shammai treat as demay anything that may be food for human consumption.: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate for ḥallah and the House of Hillel exempt it.” Did the House of Shammai include seed goods? But he who buys for sowing or animal feed, flour for tanning or oil for lighting, is he not free from demay⁷Mishnah 1:3, accepted also by the House of Shammai.? But it must be for somebody who kneads his dough with fruit juice⁸Pure fruit juice, other than grape juice and olive oil, without a drop of water added, is not one of the fluids that make food ready to become ritually impure. Also, dough made with fruit juice is really cake dough, not bread dough, and therefore should not be subject to ḥallah. However, the Mishnah, Ḥallah 2:4, declares that dough made with fruit juice is subject to ḥallah even though it cannot become impure. [Maimonides, in his Code (Bikkurim 6:12), not in his Commentary to the Mishnah, restricts the obligation of ḥallah to dough made with grape juice and olive oil; he follows the Yerushalmi Ḥallah 2:2 which seems to indicate that practice does not follow the Mishnah.] If we follow the Mishnah in Ḥallah, we should require the person who buys such bread from the baker to separate ḥallah in order to make public the obligation to give ḥallah from such “bread.”. Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina say that this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota⁹Mishnah Ṭebul Yom 3:4: “Dough prepared with some fluid {i. e., that came into contact with some of the fluids that prepare food to become impure, cf. Chapter 2, Notes 136–137} and was kneaded with fruit juice {other than grape juice or olive oil} and was touched by a person who went to the ritual bath that day {but will be pure for heave and sacrifices only at sundown (Lev. 22:7)}, R. Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota said in the name of R. Joshua that he made all of it unfit; R. Aqiba said in his {R. Joshua’s} name that he made {heave} unfit {for consumption) only at the place he touched.” Since practice follows R. Aqiba in his dispute with a single opponent, practice must be that fruit juice does not transmit impurity and, hence, does not impart impurity to ḥallah.
R. Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota, Tanna of the third generation, was a student of R. Joshua and teacher of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. The name Bartota has been tentatively identified in Upper Galilee.. R. Eleazar was known to give to charity more than he could afford, so that the administrators of charity tried to avoid being seen by him., hence it does not follow the rabbis¹⁰Since our Mishnah is anonymous, it is difficult to accept that it represents an opinion that clearly is not the practice.. But it agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said¹¹In Halakhah 1:3, R. Joḥanan says that, if the baker hires a ḥaver to knead his dough in purity, he will also be careful with heave and tithes, and the baker should tithe. If he prepares his dough in impurity, the buyer should tithe, and this is the case here. R. Eleazar holds that the Mishnah means a wholesaler, who does not have to tithe, but Mishnah 1:3 deals either with a retail baker or a private person baking for his family and guests., one case for him who works in purity and one case for him who works in impurity. But what following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, in both cases if he works in purity? It must be that he is a guest. Was it not stated¹²Quoted in Halakhah 2:2 together with the following sentences, qq. v.: “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes?” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël stated and said: That is, if one is his guest, but for the public he is not trustworthy unless he accepts it publicly. And here we deal with the public¹³Since the Mishnah states explicitly that one buys from the baker who offers baked goods to the public..

The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted. It is written⁹⁰Ex. 22:6. The verse is the introduction to the judicial oath prescribed in v. 8 (cf. Note 78) and establishes the parameters of judicial intervention. The arguments in this paragraph are to some extent paralleled in Mekhilta dR.Simeon ben Ioḥai, ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 199.: “If a person give to his neighbor money or vessels to watch over.” If to teach that the court will not act on less that a peruṭah’s worth, is it not already written: “To incur liability for it”⁹¹Lev. 5:26. One of the topics treated in Lev. 5:20–26 is the guilt of the person swearing falsely the oath required in Ex. 22:8. For the translation of the verbal root אשם as “to incur liability”, cf. J. Milgram, Leviticus1–16, Anchor Bible 1991, pp. 339–345 (the author does not refer to the rabbinic texts.) Since restitution is possible only by payment, anything worth less than the smallest coin cannot be restituted: There can be no oath for a residual claim not worth a peruṭah (Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 23, end.)? To exclude anything not worth a peruṭah. (Why does the verse say, “without silver”?)⁹²This text is an intrusion from the parallel discussion in the preceding paragraph; it is correctly missing in Šebuot. From there, that it should be more than silver⁹³The argument seems to be that nobody will give a worthless thing to be watched over. If the verse emphasizes “silver” or “money”, it must mean more than the minimum.. And what is more than silver? Two obols. But maybe “silver” is a peruṭah, more than silver two peruṭot? The smallest silver coin is an obolus⁸⁵Even though in Achaemenid Persia, the silver half-obolus was currency (also minted in the province of Yehud), in later times, prior to the Roman conquest, the obolus was the smallest silver coin. In Roman currency, the denarius was the smallest silver coin.. So why is it not an obolus? “Or vessels”; since “vessels” are two⁹⁴An indeterminate plural always means its minimum, 2. Cf. Niddah 2:5, Note 90., also “money” is two⁹⁵Babli 11b, Šebuot 39b.. How do the House of Shammai interpret “or vessels”? As we have stated: Rebbi Nathan says, “or vessels”, to include all kinds of vessels⁹⁶This argument can only be understood by reference to Mekhilta dR.Simeon ben Ioḥai (Note 90). There it is argued that since silver is mined from the earth, also “vessels” should be restricted to those made from terrestrial material, to exclude anything coming from the sea (either from seaweed or fish skin). R. Jehudah reads כֵּלִים as כְּלֵי יַם “objects from the sea” (explanation of J. N. Epstein). E. Z. Melamed also reports there that J. N. Epstein, in his personal copy of the Yerushalmi, emended the parallel reading in Šebuot, כלי חרס “clay vessels”, into כלי חרם “fisherman’s netting”, which might have been made from material grown in the sea. (The reading כלי חרס makes no sense, since clay vessels are always understood if “vessel” is used without qualifier in biblical texts and do not need to be defined through additions. In the Babli, Zebaḥim 22a, anything grown in water is considered water.) “All kinds of vessels” includes vessels made from marine material.. Samuel said, if he claimed from him two needles and he admitted to one, he is guilty⁹⁷The Babli, Šebuot 40b, points out that Samuel must hold that the “vessels” quoted in the verse refer to any vessels, irrespective of their value.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, only if they are worth two perutot, that the claim should be about a perutah’s worth and the confession about a perutah’s worth⁹⁸Since otherwise the court could not take cognizance of the case, Note 91 (quoted in Tosephot Šebuot 39b, s. v.מה).. This follows the House of Shammai who do not learn money’s worth from “vessels”. But following the House of Hillel who learn money’s worth from “vessels”, since “vessels” are two, also “money” is two. Similarly, since “money” means two obols, also “vessels” means two oboli’s worth.