Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Mga Bilang 15:24: Jerusalem Talmud Horayot & Makkot

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled but one of them knew that it was in error,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]⁷¹The ms. text, בלוד, “at Lydda” makes no sense since the High Court must sit in the ashlar hall on the Temple Mount. One has to read with B בלבד “only”. The president of the Court is the only one for whom no substitute can be found.. It is written¹²²Num. 15:24, detailing the rules governing the sacrifice of a goat if the Court unintentionally permitted idolatry. This is taken as biblical proof that the Court cannot rule in the absence of its president.: If from the eyes of the congregation, from him who is appointed as eyes of the congregation. It is written¹²³Num. 11:16, the appointment of the 70 Elders, the paradigm for the High Court. Babli 4b, they shall stand there with you. Just as you are neither proselyte, nor Gibeonite, nor a bastard¹²⁴As son of a man and his aunt, Moses would have been a bastard if his parents had married after the promulgation of Torah laws.. Proselytes are reasonable, but bastards? does the court appoints bastards? Rav Ḥuna said, when they breached the rules and appointed¹²⁵The exclusion of proselytes, Gibeonites, and bastards is strongly recommended but a breach does not invalidate the appointment.. Rebbi Ḥanania, Rebbi Mana. One said, as part of the Seventy; the other said, apart from the Seventy¹²⁶He holds that the exclusion is prescriptive; an appointment would be invalid.. He who said, apart from the Seventy, is understandable. But he who said, as part of the Seventy, therefore not apart from the Seventy? Since he is not suitable for ordination, he is considered like a stone¹²⁷If their vote cannot be counted, then automatically not all who are present are voting; therefore the false ruling will never trigger the obligation of a sacrifice..

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If one of the public died, can it be brought in his stead¹⁷⁹This is a question for RR. Jehudah and Simeon. If a person dedicated an animal as a purification offering but died before it was sacrificed, the animal cannot be sacrificed without its owner nor can it be redeemed or used for any profane or holy purpose whatsoever. If the bull really is the obligation of the public and paid by the public’s money, it should become unusable if anybody who gave money for the sacrifice (Note 172) died before the ceremony was held. Practically, this would make the ceremony impossible.? They answered, is it not written, those who came from captivity¹⁸⁰Ezra 8:35: Those who came from captivity, from the diaspora, sacrificed elevation offerings to the God of Israel, twelve bulls for all of Israel, 96 goats, 77 sheep, purification goats twelve, all of it an elevation offering for the Eternal. An elevation offering is completely burned; the meat of a purification offering is eaten by the priests. To call a purification offering an elevation offering is a contradiction in terms.? Is a purification offering an elevation offering? But just as an elevation offering is not eaten, this purification offering was not eaten¹⁸¹Babli 6a. Since they brought 12 goats, R. Jehudah has Ezra’s authority for his position. This interpretation justifies the reading of Num. 15:24 by the Mishnah. That verse requires the congregation to bring a bull as elevation offering and a goat as purification offering. If a purification offering which may not be eaten can be called an elevation offering, it is possible to identify this bull with the one prescribed in Lev.4:13. V. 24 requires the congregation (i. e., its Elders) to proffer the sacrifices but v. 25 requires the Cohen to conduct the entire ceremony. Both the opinions that the Elders do the laying on of their hands as also that the Cohen has to do it have biblical support.. Rebbi Jehudah says, they brought it for idolatry; Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling¹⁷⁸A temporary deviation from Torah norms acceptable by prophetic instruction as long as it does not violate prohibitions. The absence of a bull and the presence of multiple goats both deviate from Torah prescriptions.. Rebbi Jeremiah (learned) [did not say]¹⁶³The text in the Babli shows that one has to read למר i. e. לֹא אָמַר. so but the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders while the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders. By whom? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, by Aaron and his sons. Rebbi Yose told him, Rebbi Ḥiyya also stated, he shall put his hands on, they shall put their hands on¹⁸²Lev. 16:21 prescribes that Aaron has to lay his hand on the live goat. Since the entire service of the Day of Atonement is by the unaided High Priest, the mention of the name seems to be superfluous; it could as well have said “he has to lay his hands on.” It is concluded (next Note) that this is the only case in which the High Priest is required to lay his hands on. In parallel, one may read Lev. 4:15 where the Elders of the congregation are required to lay their hands on the bull, that they are not required to lay their hands on the goat., to include the goats of idolatry for laying on hands but not by the Elders. Rebbi Yose (learned) [did not say]¹⁶³The text in the Babli shows that one has to read למר i. e. לֹא אָמַר. so but the living [goat] needs laying on of hands by Aaron, but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by Aaron. It is written so, “Aaron shall lean with both his hands on the living goat’s head; the living [goat] needs laying on of hands by Aaron, but he goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by Aaron.¹⁸³Sifra Ahare Mot Parašah 4(4).” What does Rebbi Jeremiah do with this? He explains it, for a common priest¹⁸⁴Since neither the High Priest nor the Elders are empowered but Num. 15:25 requires the participation of a common priest, all biblical requirements are satisfied by having the common priest do the entire ceremony..

Rebbi Abahu answers, the Torah explicitly compared liabilities of kares to malkus that we learn out [through a gezaria shava] (Leviticus 20,17) "לעיני" from (Deuteronomy 25,3) "לעיניך". Rebbi Abba bar Mamal inquired, If so [that we can learn out to kares from a gezaria shava], then liabilities of court execution should also be [subject to malkus, as we should] learn out [through a gezaria shava] (Numbers 15,24) "מעיני" from (Deuteronomy 25,3) "לעיניך"?