Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Deuteronomio 26:14: Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot, Jerusalem Talmud Sotah, Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin & Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man²Lev. 22:4. The verse excludes impure persons from sanctified food. The inclusive “every man” implies that every man of the descendents of Aaron is included among the prospective eaters of heave since every man is exluded when impure. Verse 7 notes that after immersion in water he may eat the sanctified food after sundown; this refers to heave which does not require a prior purification sacrifice.”, to include the uncircumcised³Quoted in the Babli (70a, 71a, 74a) and Sifra Emor Pereq 4(18) in the name of R. Aqiba. He takes the emphatic expression “every man” to mean that in addition to the persons excluded in the text there must be some category of excluded persons not mentioned in the text.. Or “every man” to include the mourner⁴The mourner during the period between the death of a relative and his burial, who is excluded from all religious duties except the care for the burial. As R. Hila points out at the end, the exclusion of the mourner is mentioned only in the declaration of tithes (Deut. 26:14), which implies that even the Israel farmer may not eat his sanctified food (the Second Tithe) while in mourning. From there, it is inferred that the Cohen certainly is disabled during his mourning.? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]⁵Lev. 22:10: “No outsider (a non-priestly Jew; cf. Num. 18:4) shall eat sanctified [food], a Cohen’s sojourner (foreign worker) and hireling shall not eat sanctified [food].” The verse clearly disqualifies persons because of their intrinsic status, not because of a temporary disability. Sifra Emor Pereq4(16) also classifies the bastard as an outsider.”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce⁶In the Babli 71a, “I did not forbid because of mourning” which is immediately corrected to “say: not lack of circumcision.” One may not correct the Yerushalmi text according to the first version of the Babli (done by most commentators and the editors of the Zhitomir/Wilna text), since not only the principle of lectio difficilior but also the next sentence in the text, and the parallel discussion in the Babli preclude such an approach. It is clear from the start that both the uncircumcised and the mourner are forbidden heave, and the entire discussion is one of hermeneutics. No temporary disabilities have any place in the interpretation of vv. 10–13. The question is only whether the rather arbitrary approach of R. Aqiba has any justification.. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa⁷A Galilean Amora of the fourth generation; his name appears also as Ṭaifa. His sobriquet may mean that he was a redhead. asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes⁸It is the general method of R. Aqiba to analyze verses for expressions of inclusion and exclusion. The expression in 22:4: אִישׁ אִישׁ “man, man” (translated as “every man”) implies that some man is included in the set of persons excluded from heave who is not mentioned in the verse. On the other hand, if the verse had simply read אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב the same meaning as in the actual verse אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן והוּא צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב could have been expressed in correct grammar with one less word. This is taken as an exclusion, “only if he be a leper or sick with gonorrhea”, which decreases the size of the excluded set. The verse deals only with temporary disabilities. The verse 22:10 dealing with permanent disabilities has no exclusion. It is therefore acceptable to include a permanently disabled person in the excluded set and to exclude from that set an additional temporarily disabled person., I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated⁹Sifra Emor Pereq 4(18). In the Babli (70a) and the Mekhilta deR. Ismael, Bo (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 54), the argument is presented in the name of R. Eliezer, adding to the arguments of B. Z. Wacholder [The date of the Mekhilta de-R. Ishmael, HUCA 39(1968) 117–144] about the dependence of that Mekhilta on the Babli.: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover¹⁰Ex. 12:45. and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave¹¹Lev. 22:10.. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised¹²An application of the principle of גזרה שוה, R. Ismael’s rule 2: One word found in two different laws which in neither of them are needed for the understanding of the law, are written to permit the transfer of rules from one to the other.. Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner¹³However, Mishnah Pesaḥim8:8, explained in Pesaḥim [Yerushalmi 8:8 (fol. 36b), Babli 92a] states that the mourner is excluded by biblical decree only from services during daytime. This means that the mourner (as long as he is not impure) is admitted to the Passover meal. R. Haggai attempts to discredit R. Ismael’s approach.. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph¹⁴While the argument of R. Hila is almost understandable, this sentence is not. Neither in the laws of Passover nor in those of heave is the word תחת used. The Babli, in a somewhat similar discussion (71a, 74a) discusses the seemingly superfluous inclusion of three expressions “ממנו” in the laws of the Passover sacrifice offered in Egypt (Ex. 12:9,10). The argument there is not applicable here. All R. Hila seems to say is that one does not derive laws not touched upon in Ex. 22:43–50 from there.. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category¹⁵The sexless is excluded from sacrifices since he probably is a male with an ingrown penis and therefore uncircumcised. The hermaphrodite is circumcised and accepted. His inclusion here has to be rated an editorial or scribal error since “sexless and hermaphrodite” is a frequently occurring combination. (A priest hermaphrodite is excluded from the sacrifices reserved for men and admitted to those open to women; Tosephta 10:2.). The mourner comes from second tithe⁴The mourner during the period between the death of a relative and his burial, who is excluded from all religious duties except the care for the burial. As R. Hila points out at the end, the exclusion of the mourner is mentioned only in the declaration of tithes (Deut. 26:14), which implies that even the Israel farmer may not eat his sanctified food (the Second Tithe) while in mourning. From there, it is inferred that the Cohen certainly is disabled during his mourning..

“The declaration of tithes, as it is written¹⁷There is no such verse. It really should read (Deut. 26:13): “You should say before the Eternal, your God,” Who understands all languages, in contrast to the declaration of First Fruits (v. 3), where it says “you should say to him (the priest)”, who is supposed to speak only Hebrew. The quote contradicts Halakhah 2, Notes 43ff; it is correct in Sifry Deut. 303 and in the Babli, 32b, where it is pointed out that “declare and say” always means Hebrew only (as in Deut. 27:14).: “You should declare and say.”

³⁹Tosephta Zevahim 11:3.“The High Priest sacrifices while in deep⁴⁰“Deep sorrow” is the period between the death of a close relative and his burial. This is a period of biblically mandated mourning in which consumption of sanctified food is forbidden, Deut. 26:14. A simple priest, who is required to defile himself for the burial of a close relative, automatically is barred from the holy precinct until he is purified from the impurity of the dead. The High Priest is prohibited from defiling himself and from leaving the holy precinct (Lev. 21:12). The question remains, what is his status on that day? sorrow but does not eat, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, the entire day⁴¹Everybody agrees that if a High Priest is engaged in Divine Service when he is informed of the death of a close relative, he finishes his task. R. Simeon requires that upon completion he leave immediately; if he was informed while idle he also must leave immediately. R. Meïr holds that if he was in the precinct, he can start sacrificing even after being informed but then has to leave; if he was outside he cannot enter. R. Jehudah does not require him to leave.. Rebbi Simeon says, he completely finishes the service he is engaged in and then leaves.” Between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon there is one [difference], between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon there is one [difference]⁴²For R. Jehudah, he does not have to leave after finishing his task. In fact, there are two differences since for R. Jehudah he is permitted to start after being informed of the death, but not for R. Simeon.. Between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah is entering⁴³Whether he has to leave after finishing. The verse seems to support R. Jehudah, Lev. 21:12: The holy precinct he may not leave.. Rebbi Jacob ben Dositheos: interruption is between them. Rebbi Meïr says, if he was inside, he leaves; if he was outside, he did [not]⁴⁴Reading from Horaiot. enter. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he was inside, he enters⁴⁵If he was in the Temple precinct, he may start serving; if he was outside, he may not enter, since Lev. 21:12 does not apply to his situation.; if he was outside, he did not enter. Rebbi Simeon says, he completely finishes the service he is engaged in and then leaves. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: a baraita is from Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁴⁶In Horaiot: R. Simeon. The name tradition here is quite corrupt. R. Yose bar Abun of the last generation of Galilean Amoraïm was a student of R. Jacob bar Dositheos. Also he cannot speak in the name of the second generation Babylonian Rav Huna; one has to read Rebbi Huna against both mss. sources. R. Simeon ben Laqish cannot formulate a baraita: neither baraita nor Mishnah address R. Simeon’s opinion.: ⁴⁷A similar text is in Sifra Emor Parashah 2(8).The Sanctuary he shall not leave, he may not leave with them, but he may leave after them. If they⁴The people carrying the bier. The High Priest may never be seen together with them. are unseen he can be seen; he leaves with them up to the city gate, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah said, he does not leave the Temple since it is said: The Sanctuary he shall not leave⁵Lev. 21:12.. If he left, he may not return.”