Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Levitico 10:10: Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot

Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Hoshaiah¹⁰⁰Son of Rebbi Hoshaiah (see Chap. 2, Note 169). The statement is in the Babli (Pesaḥim 103b–104a) in the name of Rebbi Oshaya (Babylonian form of Hoshaiah). The entire paragraph has the appearance of being written by a person unable to pronounce an “h”.: Only one should not mention less than three separations. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, they said that he who says little should not say less than three and he who adds should not add more than seven separations. Levi said, but only separations mentioned in the Torah¹⁰¹For example, He Who separates between holy and private (Lev. 10:10), between light and darkness (Gen. 1:4), between Israel and the Gentiles (Lev. 20:26). There are no more than seven separations mentioned in the Torah. [The other four are between upper and lower waters, between day and night, between pure and impure, between Levites and other Israelites.]. Naḥum¹⁰²Also called Menaḥem ben R. Simai, an Amora of the first generation who was renowned for his holiness. ben Rebbi Simai went out and said in his father’s name: even one separation. But Rebbi Abbahu said, one must seal with “separation”. Rebbi Mana objected, even if he started by “He Who separates between holy and worldly” and ends, seals by “He Who separates between holy and worldly”¹⁰³Would Rebbi Abbahu agree with R. Naḥum ben R. Simai that a benediction would be: “Praise to You, o Eternal, our God, King of the universe, Who separates between holy and wordly. Praise to You, Eternal, Who separates between holy and wordly”? That text looks too silly to be acceptable.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, is it not from the benedictions that one starts with “praised” and ends with “praised”¹⁰⁴As stated in Halakhah 1:4. However, Rebbi Abbahu is more specific and requires the final benediction to contain the word המבדיל. In the Babli (Pesaḥim 104a) there is a discussion whether the separation referred to in the concluding benediction is the first or the last one of the list. In any case, it is clear that R. Abbahu cannot agree with R. Naḥum bar Simai to produce the meaningless formula of R. Mana. Hence, the opinion of R. Naḥum must be rejected.?