Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Levitico 23:29: Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat, Jerusalem Talmud Makkot, Jerusalem Talmud Yoma & Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma

There⁶⁰Mishnah Keritut 3:4., we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was a Sabbath and he carried it out⁶¹As noted before, a purification offering is possible only for transgressions punishable at least by extirpation. The Mishnah gives an example that a single act may trigger the obligation of 4 purification and one reparation offerings. An impure person who eats a piece of well-being offering (Lev. 7:20) which is fat (v.25) and more than 2 days old (v. 18) on the Day of Atonement (23:29). For the illicit use of a sanctum a reparation sacrifice is due (5:15–16). R. Meïr adds that if the day also was a Sabbath and the person would take the piece in a private domain, carry it out and eat it in the public domain, an additional purification offering is needed.
The text and R. Yudan’s explanation make it clear that the Yerushalmi does not read with some Babli sources “carried it out in his mouth.”. They told him, it is not the category⁶²The five sacrifices are due for eating one piece; the Sabbath infraction would be for carrying. S. Liebermann explains אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם as “is not simultaneous.”.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down⁶³Eating may also be done while walking; the Sabbath infraction becomes a liability only when the motion stopped.. Who is “they said to him”? Rebbi Yose⁶⁴There is no other reference to the fact that the objection to R. Meïr originates with the Tanna R. Yose.! The argument of Rebbi Yose is inverted. There, he does not consider the person walking equal to one who was putting down but here he is considering the person walking equal to one who was putting down⁶⁵This argument may support Liebermann’s interpretation. Since for R. Yose a person walking is considered stopping at every place, the Sabbath infraction and the desecration of the sacrifice are simultaneous.! Rebbi Yudan said, explain it that he was laying on the threshold⁶⁶An Accadic word (askuppum). The word describes not only the threshold but also the stairs leading from the road to the house. [Also cf. Latin scapus “post or newel of a circular staircase; main stile of a door on which it hinges” (E. G.)] partially inside, his mouth outside, when he stretched out his hand, took it, and ate it. Then he did not walk⁶⁷If the piece of fat was lying inside the private domain, the Sabbath violation did not involve any movement of his body; the reference to R. Yose’s opinion about transporting on the Sabbath is irrelevant, as is the explanation given in the preceding sentence. The difference in the status of the required sacrifices is as indicated in Note 62..

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna⁸⁷It would seem obvious that the names “Huna” and “Jehudah” should be switched. But the attributions are identical in the Leiden ms., G, and the lengthy quote in Sefer Haˋittim (p. 307).: ⁸⁸A similar text is in Tosephta 10:1 (ed. Liebermann). If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: ⁸¹Mishnah 10:2. “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold, whether he or somebody else carries them to the street there is no liability since it was not done in one action.”“If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step⁸⁹As noted before, the work of transporting consists of lifting, moving, and depositing. If this is done from private to public domain, it is a desecration of the Sabbath. But a combination of two actions, both involving karmelit and therefore not creating liability, still does not create liability. he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out⁶¹As noted before, a purification offering is possible only for transgressions punishable at least by extirpation. The Mishnah gives an example that a single act may trigger the obligation of 4 purification and one reparation offerings. An impure person who eats a piece of well-being offering (Lev. 7:20) which is fat (v.25) and more than 2 days old (v. 18) on the Day of Atonement (23:29). For the illicit use of a sanctum a reparation sacrifice is due (5:15–16). R. Meïr adds that if the day also was a Sabbath and the person would take the piece in a private domain, carry it out and eat it in the public domain, an additional purification offering is needed.
The text and R. Yudan’s explanation make it clear that the Yerushalmi does not read with some Babli sources “carried it out in his mouth.”. They told him, it is not the category⁶²The five sacrifices are due for eating one piece; the Sabbath infraction would be for carrying. S. Liebermann explains אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם as “is not simultaneous.”.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai⁹⁰Since practice follows the opinion of those who “said to him” in Mishnah Keritut3:4, for Rav Huna it is clear that walking is not considered depositing.. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages⁹¹Since for Rav Jehudah everybody agrees that walking is considered depositing according to everybody, those who “said to him” seem to be nonexistent.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.⁹²The Tanna R. Yose as explained earlier.

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food¹²Lev. 7:20,21; transgressions punishable by extirpation., or who came into the Temple when impure¹³Num. 19:13.. One who eats fat¹⁴Lev. 7:25., or blood¹⁵Lev. 7:27., or leftover, or piggul¹⁶Lev. 19:8., or impure¹⁷“Leftover” refers to meat from acceptable sacrifices which was not eaten during the statutory time limit. Piggul is a sacrifice which was offered with the idea in mind (of the offerer or the officiating priest) that it should be eaten out of its allotted time (or place); Lev. 7:18,19:8. The root of piggul probably is فجل “to be soft”. [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside¹⁹Lev. 17:4., or one who eats leavened matter on Passover²⁰Ex. 12:19.. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement²¹Lev. 23:29–30., and one who compounds the oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., or compounds the incense²³For profane purposes, Ex. 30:38. Incense had to be compounded fresh every year., and who rubs with the anointing oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., and one who eats carcass²⁴Deut. 14:21, a simple prohibition. or torn meat²⁵Ex. 22:30, a simple prohibition., abominations and crawling things²⁶Lev. 11:11,44.. If one ate ṭevel²⁷Fully harvested produce of which the priests’ heave was not taken; Lev. 22:10. or first tithe from which heave was not taken²⁸The obligation is Num. 18:28, the penalty Num. 18:32., or second tithe²⁹Outside the place of the Sanctuary it needs redemption, Deut. 14:24. or dedicated food³⁰Donated to the Temple to be sold for its value, not dedicated to the altar; Lev. 27:11. which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant]³¹In editio princeps and ms., נבילה “carcass meat”. In all other sources נמלה “ant”. The latter reading is the only one which makes sense since it both is forbidden (Lev. 11:42) and much less than the size of an olive. is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat³²Given as heave (biblically restricted to grain, wine, and olive oil). is a creature.