Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Levitico 17:6: Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim

The rabbis of Caesarea asked: I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood]¹⁴⁵The Cohen who receives the blood of the sacrifice slaughtered by a layman or Levite, and the one who carries it to the altar. These two actions are biblically required. Reception of the blood in a sanctified vessel is mentioned explicitly; the action of carrying the blood is required implicitly since slaughter of the sacrifice must be performed away from the altar (North of the altar for most holy sacrifices, Lev. 1:11; before the Tent of Meeting for simple sacrifices, Lev. 3:2,8,13). on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that one is liable for it outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside¹⁴⁶In the prohibition of sacrifices outside the Sanctuary (Lev. 17), only slaughter (v.4), pouring and burning of the parts (v. 6) are mentioned. There exists liability for extirpation or a purification sacrifice even if the slaughter was performed so that collection of the blood and carrying it was not necessary.. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, and he atones¹⁴⁷This expression is never used for the Pesaḥ. The reference is to the verses referring to purification sacrifices, Lev.4:26,31, from which it would appear that the burning of the fat on the altar is the atoning agent but which in Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah) Pereq 11 (5–6) is explained to refer only to the pouring of the blood.. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Instead of arguing for absence of liability, argue for liability. I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood]¹⁴⁸The argument shows that instead of “the one who receives or carries” one has to read “one who burns parts”. on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], I also am adding burning of the parts for which one is liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter¹⁴⁹The argument shows that instead of “one who burns parts” one has to read “the one who receives or carries”. not be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, I also am adding the one who receives or carries who is indispensable for atonement¹⁵⁰The argument of the rabbis of Caesarea is invalid since it can be turned upside down.. He said to him, anything equal in both respects instructs; anything not equal in both respects does not instruct. Sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement and for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside; it excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement¹⁵¹The statement of the rabbis of Caesarea is correct but their argument is incomplete..

¹¹⁴Discussion of the statement of the Mishnah that both the Omer and the Two Breads are brought in impurity even though they cannot be consumed by the priest and it is questionable whether a fistful of the Omer can be burned or the breads presented before the altar if that action seems purposeless since it does not serve to permit anything to be eaten. Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joshua: One verse says, but a firstling of cattle, or a firstling of sheep, or a firstling of goats¹¹⁵Num. 18:17. The verse continues: pour their blood on the altar, and burn their fat, … and their meat shall be yours., etc. And another verse says¹¹⁶Lev. 17:6. the Cohen shall pour the blood on the Eternal’s altar at the door of the Tent of Meeting, and burn the fat for a pleasant smell before the Eternal. Only if there be there either meat be be eaten or parts to be burned¹¹⁷Since Num. 18:17 mentions fat and meat but Lev.17:6 only fat, it follows that the sacrifice is acceptable if the blood is poured either to permit the fat to be burned or the meat to be eaten.. There we have stated¹¹⁸Mishnah Menaḥot3:4. For flour offerings, the fistful to be burned on the altar permits the remainder to be eaten by the Cohanim; the relationship of the fistful taken by the priest for the altar to the remainder to be consumed in the sacred domain is parallel to that of blood to be poured and the parts to be burned or the meat to be eaten.: “If the remainders became impure, the remainders were burned, the remainders were lost. In the rules of Rebbi Eliezer it is qualified, in the rules of Rebbi Joshua it is disqualified. [Not in a vessel of service it is disqualified; Rebbi Ismael¹¹⁹The second part of the Mishnah was added by the corrector; by the testimony of K this should be deleted. “R. Ismael” is a scribal error for “R. Simeon” in the Mishnah and in a quote of the Mishnah in Yoma 2:1, 39c line 32. qualifies. If he burned the fistful in two parts it is qualified.”] In Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; even though if there is no meat there is blood¹²⁰For him, pouring the blood is a sacral act independent of the fact that pouring the blood is needed to enable the parts to be burned and the meat to be eaten.. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, even though if there are no remainders there is a fistful. In Rebbi Joshua’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; if there is no meat there is no blood¹²¹If nothing is to be enabled, the act of pouring becomes meaningless and therefore has to be avoided. But then R. Joshua cannot permit the Omer to be brought in impurity, since this also would be a meaningless act.. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, if there are no remainders there is no fistful. Rebbi Mana said, explain it¹¹⁴Discussion of the statement of the Mishnah that both the Omer and the Two Breads are brought in impurity even though they cannot be consumed by the priest and it is questionable whether a fistful of the Omer can be burned or the breads presented before the altar if that action seems purposeless since it does not serve to permit anything to be eaten. following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, even though there are no remainders there is a fistful. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, Rebbi Joshua agrees that if he transgressed and poured the blood that it was made acceptable¹²²Since the diadem justifies the act retroactively, the same can be said for the Omer and the entire Mishnah may be R. Joshua’s..