תלמוד על קידושין 1:2

“Desecrated priest.” Following⁹Ezra 2:61–63. The verses prove that there were desecrated priests coming from Babylonia, as asserted in the Mishnah. “from the sons of Cohanim, the family Ḥavaya, the family Haqqoṣ . .¹⁰Not mentioned here is the statement that their problem was rooted in the fact that their ancestors 500 years earlier had married the daughters of Barzilai the Gileadite; this is the subject of the following paragraph. The quote then shows that the category of “desecrated priest” is hereditary. . they tried to find their genealogical documents; but they were not found and they were freed from priesthood. And the tiršata¹¹The Persian title of the governor, “the one to be feared”. The title is applied to Nehemiah in 8:9; therefore, traditionally the appellation is interpreted as a kind of nickname of Nehemiah (as is explicit in G) and as such the Iranian word is read as an Aramaic pun. It is clear from Neh. 7 that the title in Ezra 2 cannot apply to Nehemiah; it probably refers to Sheshbazzar. told them.” Why was he called hattiršata? Because they permitted him to drink of the wine¹²As cup-bearer to the Persian monarch, Nehemiah certainly had to taste the wine to make sure it was not poisoned. But drinking Gentile wine is forbidden in rabbinic Judaism. Since Nehemiah shows himself to be strictly orthodox in Ezra and Nehemiah, the natural assumption is that he had obtained a special dispensation from the religious authorities of the time. The interpretation reads the name הַתִּרְשָׁתָא (which never appears without initial ה) not as a noun with definite article but a composite הַתֵּר-שָׁתָא “permitted drinker.” The explanation is quoted by Rashi, 69b, s.v. התרשתא.. Hatiršata, “I was the king’s cup bearer.” “That they should not eat from what was dedicated as holy¹³It seems that the Yerushalmi is in disagreement with the vocalization by the Masoretes. In the Pentateuch, to which the verses clearly are referring, masoretic vocalization strictly differentiates between the noun קֳדָשִׁים “sancta, sacrifices” and the superlative adjective קָדָשִׁים “most holy”. Since the mss. of the Ben-Asher tradition uniformly write קֳדָשִׁים in the verse here, it is clear that the masoretic interpretation of the verse forbade all holy food to the desecrated priests, whether Temple sacrifices or “outside sancta”, i. e., heave and tithes. But the Yerushalmi, based on the Mishnaic distinction between קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים “most holy sacrifices”, destined exclusively for the altar and/or legitimate priests in the Temple precinct, קֳדָשִׁם קַלִּים “simple sacrifices” (well-being offerings) shared between altar, priests, and the donor’s family, and קָדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל “outside sancta”, here reads מִקָּדְשֵׁי הַקָּדָשִׁים “from most holy sacrifices.” This immediately raises the question why desecrated priests are not summarily excluded from all holy food (as they are in rabbinic practice). As far as the fragmentary text of G can be interpreted, this is exactly the question asked, which is missing in L and editio princeps: “[If they are genuine priests] they should eat Temple sancta; if they are not genuine priests [they should be excluded from all sancta.]” The Yerushalmi is quoted by Rashi as explanation of the Babli, 69b s. v. ואמר להם..” Therefore, from outside¹⁴Maybe better: “Borderline sancta.” holy food they might eat? Rebbi Yose said, great is the permanence of the status quo ante¹⁵Cf. Giṭṭin 3:4 Note 87, Ketubot5:5 Note 100, Yebamot 15:12 Notes 181. An echo of the discussion here is in the Babli, 69b. Since they were used to eat there¹⁶In Babylonia, an impure country, where heaves and tithes were given to the priests as a remembrance of biblical rules, not a biblical obligation., they may also eat here. One understands there, as it is written: “Put up signposts for yourself.¹⁷Jer. 31:20. The verse is read as exhortation to symbolically observe in the diaspora also those biblical precepts which are intrinsically bound to the Land (Threni rabbati 1:62).” What can one say here¹⁸Since heave and heave of the tithe in the Land require genuine purity and genuine priests.? Following him who said, they accepted tithes voluntarily¹⁹Cf. Halakhah 1:9, Ševi‘it 6:1.. “Until a priest will be appointed for urim and tummim.” But were there any urim and tummim then, in the Second Temple²⁰The urim wetummim oracle was never part of the High Priest’s vestment in the Second Temple since its nature was unknown.? But [he is] like a person who says until the dead will be resurrected, until David’s son²¹The Messiah. will come.

There, we have stated: If anything is given instead of money, if one entered in possession, the other is obligated for its exchange¹⁷Cf. Note 2, Qiddušin 1:6, Note 521.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they stated this only about an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox; but heap against heap one did not acquire. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Even heaps among heaps he did acquire¹⁸Qiddušin 1:6, Note 525. If one of the parties took possession, the other party automatically obtained possession of the exchanged property.. Rebbi Abba bar Mina in the name of Rav: One who exchanged אברוקלון against אמברוקלון did acquire¹⁹The reading of R. Ḥananel and ‘Arukh is: One who exchanged אמבורקלין against אמבורקלין did acquire. Arukh explains as “bundles of sheets” which in Italian (dialect of Rome) would be called ברוקלי (variants ברוקלון, ברוקלו) or (תרצילו, טורצלי, תרוצולו, תורצלו) .טרצילו. The second word is identified by Krauss in Additamenta ad librum Aruch Completum as turzello. M. Sachs (J. Levy, S. Krauss) identifies אמבורוקלון as Latin involucrum “wrapper; covering; envelope”, from involvo “to wrap up, roll up.”. Turzello, from Latin tortus “a twisting, winding”, from torqueo “to twist, to turn” is an acceptable translation of involucrum. In this interpretation, the statement implies that the laws of barter also apply if something is exchanged against an object of the same kind. It is difficult to understand why this should not be so.
H. Y. D. Azulay, in his פתח עיניים, quotes from the ms. of R. Menaḥem di Lonzano בדיקלין באמה בדיקלין. E: אמלוקנין באמבוליקין.
However, Maimonides connects the statement with the later Mishnaiot whose subject is the cancellation of a sale because of overcharging by the seller or underpaying by the buyer. He reads the statement as meaning that a barter is concluded the moment one of the parties takes possession of the object coming to him, and no legal recourse exists for the party realizing that he made a bad bargain. He must hold that אברוקלון and אמבורוקלון are two different objects. It is possible that he reads the two words as “needle” and “silk cloth” since he writes (Mekhirah 13:1): “One who barters vessels agains vessels or animals against animals, even a needle for silk cloth or a kid goat for a horse, has no claim of overcharging since he might prefer a needle to silk cloth.” The horse is specifically exempt from the rules of overcharging in Halakhah 4, Note 132. (Ravad objects and thinks that Maimonides misunderstood the Yerushalmi.) The commentary Migdal ‘Oz (R. Šem-Ṭob Gabbai) readsאמבורקלין אמטרקלין, but gives no explanation of the words beyond noting that these clearly denote different objects..

“I took”, that excludes assignations⁷⁸If a man buys somebody’s underage daughter as an indentured servant (Ex. 21:7–11) he can later assign the price he paid for her as bride money either for himself or for his son and declare her preliminarily married without investing an additional penny in her. But since the money originally was given for her work as a servant, not for marriage, the husband cannot say “I bought her as a wife”.. Rebbi Jonah said, even following him who says that the money from the start was given for assignation⁸¹In Qiddušin 1:2 (59b 1. 40), Babli 19a, the only other places where the question is raised, only R. Yose ben R. Jehudah holds that the original money was not given with the idea that eventually it would be used as brides-money. But everybody agrees that the verses Ex. 21:8–9 require a separate action of assignment which is distinct from the original acquisition; therefore, the marriage of the indentured servant is not a “buy”.. “I took”, to exclude the one waiting for her levir⁷⁹The levir did not give any money, his deceased brother did.; not only for the earlier teachings that the obligation of the levirate precedes that of ḥalîṣah, but even according to the later teachings that the obligation of ḥalîṣah precedes the obligation of levirate⁸²Cf. Yebamot 12:7, Note 140; Bekhorot Mishnah 1:7.. “I took”, to exclude the preliminarily married one⁸⁰In this case, money was given but the marriage not consummated..