Talmud Jerusalem
Talmud Jerusalem

Talmud for Horayot 3:1

חטאות ואשמות וודאין שעבר עליהן יה"כ ניחא על דעתיה דר"ע דמפנה אהן קרייה במחוייבי חטאות ואשמות וודאין שעבר עליהן יה"כ. דתני מניין למחוייבי חטאות ואשמות וודאין שעבר עליהן יה"כ שהן חייבין להביא לאחר יום הכיפורים וחייבי אשמות תלויין פטורין ת"ל או הודע אליו חטאתו והביא אף לאחר יום הכפורים. מן הדא נפש כי תחטא אחת תחטא בעשותה הרי אילו מיעוטין התולה בעצמו חייב התולה בבית דין פטור אין חייבין אלא על דבר שהיה גלוי להן ונכסה מהן ומה טעמא ונעלם דבר דבר שהיה גלוי להן ונכסה מהן. על דעתיה דרבי ישמעאל דו אמר ונעלם ממנו מכלל שהיה יודע והוא ידע הרי שתי ידיעות על דעתיה דרבי עקיבה דו אמר ונעלם ממנו ונעלם ממנו שני פעמים מכלל שבאת לו ידיעה בתחילה וידיעה בסוף והעלם בנתיים ת"ל ונעלם דבר דבר שהיה גלוי להם ונכסה מהן אין חייבין עד שיורו לבטל מקצת ולקיים מקצת. שמואל אמר והן שהורו מותר אבל אם הורו פטור לא בדא. אין חייבין עד שתהא הורייה מלשכת הגזית אמר רבי יוחנן טעמא דהך תנייא מן המקום ההוא אשר יבחר ה'. אמר רבי מנא בר תנחום נכנסו מאה עד שיורו כולן. תמן אמר רבי זעירא והוא שיהו כולן מורין מצד אחד וכא מה הלך היחיד ועשה שוגג על פיהן

a creative task, he should bring a sin offering. Two--he should bring a conditional sin offering. Three--he is exempt [from bringing a sacrifice of any sort.]” Rabbi Yose bar Bon raised the question [thus]: “If you were to say that two [stars indicate] doubt [as to whether it is day or night, then] if one saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was the Sabbath, thus making him liable for its violation], yet he [nonetheless] performed a creative task; [and if he subsequently] saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was still the Sabbath], yet he performed a creative task; then either way you like [he is liable for a violation of the Sabbath]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was now] night time [and the Sabbath had begun], then the first stars were also [an indication that it was now] night time [and no longer the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the first set [of stars]. [Another example:] If he saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and partially harvested a fig, [and] if he [subsequently returned] in the morning and harvested another part, and if he saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and harvested the [last] part of the fig, then either way you like [he is liable for a sin offering]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the departure of the sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was] night time [and now the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was] daytime [and no longer the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the night of the Sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the first set [of stars].” These [stars] that you are speaking of are [only] those whose way is not to appear in the daytime. However, we do not count those whose way is to appear in the daytime. Rabbi Yose bar Bon said: “Just so long as three stars may be seen aside from that [one we call] Kokhvata (prob. Venus).” (This may be a scribal error and the original version may have been: “Just so long as three stars may be seen [in one place, just] as one star [can be so seen.]”) Rabbi Yaakov of Romana in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi: “One star, surely day. Two, night.” But does he [truly] have no [time period of] doubt!? He has doubt about [discerning] one star from another. A baraita teaches: “So long as the eastern horizon is reddened, it is daytime. What has been said about the stars, applies to those which are not generally seen until nightfall; for, no note is taken of those which appear before the day is terminated. Therefore, R. Yosse bar R. Aboon says: It means three stars not counting, R. Jacob from Darom (south) says: One star indicates that it is still day; but two stars certainly show that it is night. Is there any doubt of this? No; the doubt can only exist between the stars visible by day, and the other stars. With regard to this, we are taught that it is still day as long as the sky is red towards the east; SIGN OF [GOD'S] ANGER3 WHY MAKE MENTION OF IT? THEREUPON R. ELIEZER SAID TO HIM: I ALSO DID NOT SAY TO PRAY4 BUT TO MAKE MENTION [IN THE WORD] ‘HE CAUSETH THE WIND TO BLOW AND THE RAIN TO FALL’5 -IN ITS DUE SEASON. HE [R. JOSHUA] REPLIED TO HIM: IF THAT IS SO ONE SHOULD AT ALL TIMES MAKE MENTION OF IT. WE PRAY FOR RAIN ONLY CLOSE TO THE RAINY SEASON. R. JUDAH SAYS: THE LAST TO STEP BEFORE THE ARK6 ON THE LAST DAY OF THE FEAST MAKES MENTION, THE FIRST DOES NOT; ON THE FIRST DAY OF PASSOVER THE FIRST MAKES MENTION, THE LAST DOES NOT. GEMARA. What has the Tanna [in mind] when he teaches WHEN etc.?7 -The Tanna refers to [a Mishnah] elsewhere which teaches: We make mention of the Power of Rain in the [benediction of] the Revival of the Dead,8 and we pray for [rain] in the Benediction of the Years9 and [we insert] the Habdulah10 in [the benediction] ‘Thou favourest man with knowledge’.11 [With that passage in mind] the Tanna now teaches: When do we [begin] to make mention of the Power of Rain? Would it not have been more appropriate to teach it there, why did he leave it until now? — [Say] rather, because the Tanna had just completed [learning the Tractate] Rosh Hashanah12 where we have learnt: And on the Feast [the world] is judged through water. And, [as there] he taught: ‘And on the Feast [the world] is judged through water,’ therefore there he teaches: When do we [begin] to make mention of the Power of Rain. But let him teach: When do we [begin] to make mention of Rain: why, the Power of Rain?-R. Johanan said: Because Rain comes down by the Power [of God], as it is said, Who doeth great things und unsearchable, marvellous things without number.13 And it is [further] written, Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields.14 Where [in these verses is this idea] implied? — Rabbah b. Shila replied: It is derived from the analogous use of the word heker in verses treating of Creation. Here it is written, ‘Who doeth great things and unsearchable’. And there it is written, ‘Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard that the everlasting God, The Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? His discernment is past searching out.15 And [of Creation] it is [also] written, Who by Thy strength settest fast the mountains, Who art girded about with might.16 Whence do we know that mention of Rain is to be made in the Prayer?17 - It has been taught: To love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart.18 What is Service of Heart? You must needs say, Prayer. And the verse following reads, That I will give the rain of your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain.19 R. Johanan said: Three keys the Holy One blessed be He has retained in His own hands and not entrusted to the hand of any messenger, namely, the Key of Rain, the Key of Childbirth, and the Key of the Revival of the Dead. The Key of Rain, for It is written, The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven to give the rain of thy land in its season,20 The Key of Childbirth, for it is written, And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot

331A parallel text (שׁ) is in Šabbat 12:3 (13c l. 62 ff.) The text here is primary; there the story is told as an appendix to the argument of R. Immi which, however, responds not to the question asked about precedence but about Sabbath prohibitions as explained in Note 329. Two families were in Sepphoris, one of city councillors332Greek βουλευταί. and one rural333Latin pagani., who were greeting the Patriarch every day. The councillors went in first and left first. The rural ones went and acquired [knowledge in] Torah. They came and wanted to have precedence. It was asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked it from Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Joḥanan went up and preached in Rebbi Benaiah’s house of study334The text of B, “of Tiberias” has to be rejected. Not only is the text of L confirmed by the text in Šabbat, but also the remark that he “went up” refers to going from Tiberias below Sea level to Sepphoris high in the mountains but also the entire story is placed at Sepphoris and only there a public ruling was needed.: “But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest335Mishnah 3:9..” They wanted to say, to be redeemed, for livelihood, and for clothing, but not for the Academy. Rebbi Abun said, even for the Academy. What is the reason? It is more precious than pearls336Prov.. 3:15., even than he who enters into the Most Holy [of the Sanctuary.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Moed Katan

369The following paragraph is a re-writing of one in Sanhedrin2:1 (Notes 31–38) and Horaiot3:6 (Notes 200–202). About rending the trim around the neck, see Notes 330 ff. For no deceased one he rends the trim except for father and mother, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, any tear which does not completely sever the trim is a frivolous tear. Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah in two things. Rebbi Joḥanan heard that Rebbi Ḥanina was weak. He was going up to visit him. On the road he heard that he had died. He descended from his donkey, took out the good Sabbath garment, and tore it. As we have stated there370Mishnah Horaiot 3:6.: “The High Priest rends his garment below, the common priest above.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: On top, high starting with the seam, below, low starting with the seam. Rebbi Joḥanan said, really low. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana follows Rebbi Jehudah. If following Rebbi Jehudah, he should not tear at all! How about this? It is a stringency for the High Priest that he shall sever the seam completely371Meaning that it is a stringency for the High Priest that he is forbidden to sever the seam completely. The High Priest is forbidden to let his hair grow or tear his clothes (Lev. 21:10). R. Meïr interprets the verse to mean that in mourning he may not tear his garment in the way other people do The Mishnah is R. Meïr’s. It is obvious that one speaks here of the High Priest’s personal belonging, not his robes of office, which may not be torn (Ex. 28:32,29:23). The point is made that Lev. 21:10 does not use the frequently used verb קרע “to tear” but the infrequent פרם “to tear in little pieces”. This is interpreted in Sifra Emor Parashah 2(3) to mean that the High Priest is not totally forbidden to rend his garments, only he may not do what everybody does. If he rends it, it may only be at the bottom, where few people will notice, and it may not be deep. Horaiot 12b..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah

HALAKHAH: 411The entire Halakhah is also in Horaiot3:3 (Notes 132–188). The copy of the first paragraph in Horaiot is incomplete; the later paragraphs are also in Yoma1:1 (Notes 123–149). It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull412The definite article used in Lev. 4:3, the priest, would alone have sufficed to characterize the High Priest, biblically distinguished from all others.. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb413Tosephta Horaiot 2:3.. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed414The double restriction, the priest (the High Priest), anointed, makes it clear that only an anointed high priest is meant. The rabbinic disagreement implies that no High Priest of Second Temple times ever brought a purification sacrifice for himself.. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war415The one mentioned in Deut. 20:3 charged with addressing the army. He also is called the priest (Soṭah Chapter 8) and bound by all restrictions imposed on the High Priest in Lev. 21:10–15 (Tosephta 2:1).. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here416Lev. 6:15, on the daily flour sacrifice of the High Priest. is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb417Mishnah Horaiot 3:4 mentions the daily offering of a tenth of an ephah as duty of the High Priest clothed in multiple garb [Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 5(1)].. But here418In the Chapter on purification sacrifices. they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb419Aaron and his successors are mentioned in v. 13. In v. 15, the mention of “the priest, anointed from his descendants in his stead” does not seem to require a mention of anointing as a definition.. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, [he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said,]420Unnecessary corrector’s addition. this refers to the king421Since Cohen may simply mean “public servant” (2S. 8:18).. If you would say already this precedes the paragraph about the king422Which is only the third in the Chapter., I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat423As explained in Horaiot2:3, The High Priest may offer a bull only for his forgetting a topic in religious law. One could argue that for simple acting in error, he should bring a commoner’s sacrifice (or, since a male animal is mentioned, the goat characterized earlier as sacrifice for inadvertent idolatry). The specific mention of priest bars him from a commoner’s sacrifice.. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Full Chapter