Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Talmud for Temurah 32:19

שהקדושה חלה על בעלת מום קבוע ואין יוצא לחולין

Then it is proved from here that we form an analogy between the cases not explicitly stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin-offering whose owners procured atonement and whose year had passed.');"><sup>17</sup></span> and the cases explicitly stated: Just as in the cases explicitly stated the sin-offering is brought by an individual and not by a congregation, so in the cases not explicitly stated the sin-offering is brought by an individual and not by a congregation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This then is the reason for R. Simeon's opinion. The Rabbis however hold that four cases of sin-offerings were imparted from Sinai to be left to die. Therefore wherever we find that a sin-offering applies to an individual and a congregation, then it applies, and where not, it does not apply.');"><sup>18</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IN SOME WAYS [THE LAW RELATING TO] DEDICATIONS CARRIES GREATER WEIGHT THAN [THAT RELATING TO] EXCHANGE, AND IN SOME WAYS [THAT RELATING TO] EXCHANGE CARRIES GREATER WEIGHT THAN [THAT RELATING TO] DEDICATIONS. IN SOME WAYS [THE LAW RELATING TO] DEDICATIONS CARRIES GREATER WEIGHT THAN [THAT RELATING TO] EXCHANGE, FOR DEDICATED ANIMALS CAN EFFECT EXCHANGE WHEREAS ONE SUBSTITUTED CANNOT EFFECT EXCHANGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if one says concerning an animal consecrated through being a substitute that it should in turn confer holiness on another animal by means of exchange, a further exchange does not take place.');"><sup>19</sup></span> A CONGREGATION OR PARTNERS CAN DEDICATE BUT CANNOT EFFECT EXCHANGE. WE CAN DEDICATE EMBRYOS AND LIMBS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the view of R. Judah (supra 10a) .');"><sup>20</sup></span> BUT WE CANNOT EFFECT EXCHANGE WITH THEM. [THE LAW RELATING TO] EXCHANGE CARRIES GREATER WEIGHT THAN [THAT RELATING TO] DEDICATIONS, SINCE EXCHANGE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So with Sh. Mek.');"><sup>21</sup></span> HAS EFFECT ON A PERMANENTLY BLEMISHED ANIMAL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if one substitutes a blemished animal for an unblemished dedicated animal, holiness attaches to the former to the extent that it does not become hullin.');"><sup>22</sup></span> AND IT DOES NOT BECOME HULLIN

Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean111A Galilean Amora of the third generation, teacher of Rebbi Jonah., Rebbi Yasa bar Ḥanina: One does not ask rulings on practice before the bier of a deceased112In the Babli (Berakhot 3b) it is stated more generally, in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi, that words of Torah are forbidden in presence of a coffin. According to Rashi, the reason is (Prov. 17:5): “He who scoffs at the poor blasphemes his Maker.” Since the dead person can no longer study Torah, he is poor in this respect.. But Rebbi Yoḥanan asked Rebbi Yannai before the bier of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq113This is the correct reading of the Rome ms. R. Simeon bar Yoẓadaq was an Amora of the first generation, one of the teachers of Rebbi Yoḥanan. The Leyden ms. has שמואל בר יוצדק by a scribal error. about him who dedicated his holocaust sacrifice for the upkeep of the Temple, and he answered him114The Mishnah (Temurah 32a) states that a forbidden substitution is valid only from lesser to higher sanctity. The highest sanctity of a sacrifice is the עוֹלָה, the holocaust, which is totally burnt on the altar, whereas gifts for the upkeep of the Temple are only a monetary obligation. So it should be impossible to dedicate an ‘olah for the upkeep of the Temple. However, a baraita (Babli Temurah 32b) states that a holocaust which afterwards was dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple cannot be slaughtered unless redeemed first and the money given to the Temple. The answer given there (presumably by Rebbi Yannai) is that the obligation of redemption is purely rabbinical, a kind of fine, but that from the Torah the second dedication is invalid.! Let us say when he was far away115So that the deceased could not have heard them even were he still alive. or when they were bringing him to the study hall116Most commentators explain that Rebbis Yoḥanan and Yannai were outside the Bet-Hamidrash. However, that would be the same as “being far away”. Therefore, it seems that the correct interpretation is given by R. Zacariah Frankel, that a eulogy of a Torah teacher in his own school by necessity must involve words of Torah.. But Rebbi Jeremiah asked Rebbi Zeïra before the bier of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac! Let us say that he answered him when he was far away; when he was close he did not answer him.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse