Temurah 14b — the Talmud in English

No

delete it,

you do not need to erase

“the libation offering” from the Mishna,

from that beraita! For according to the words of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, one can reconcile it without erasing anything—

And it is not difficult

to reconcile the contradiction between the two beraitot:

Here,

the beraita that said that the libation offering is among the things whose offering is customarily performed during the day is speaking

of libations that come together with the sacrifice,

as the beraita indeed said, “the libation offering.” And since the slaughtering of the sacrifice sanctified them with sanctity of the body, therefore they may be offered only during the day, as explained—

whereas

here,

the beraita that said that libations are offered at night is speaking

of libations that come on their own,

without a sacrifice, which were not sanctified through the slaughtering of the sacrifice; therefore, one may offer them even at night .

The Gemara discusses the words of Rabbi Dimi, who would send a letter to Rav Joseph and write to him the exposition of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: “For matters transmitted orally, you are not permitted to write them in writing”? And we object:

And if

he found a man,

if he found a messenger—

would he write a letter?! But Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Those who write halakhot

are

like those who burn the Torah,

because one does not rescue them from a fire on Shabbat, and it follows that he is as though he caused words of Torah to be burned. Another version: because it is forbidden to leave them in his possession in writing, and he is obligated to consign them to geniza or burn them; it follows that one who writes them causes them to be burned.

And one who learns from them,

from these written texts,

does not receive a reward.

And the Gemara brings further statements of tannaim and amoraim concerning the prohibition against writing the Oral Torah:

And Rabbi Judah bar Nahmani, the translator of Reish Lakish, expounded: One verse says [

Exodus 34]

“Write for yourself these words,”

which shows that they were given to be written,

and

another

verse says [

there]

“For according to these words,”

which shows that they were not given to be written. How is this [to be understood]?

It is to tell you: Matters transmitted orally, you are not permitted to say them in writing. And

matters

that are in writing—

you are not permitted to say them by heart.

And the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught:

The Torah said [there]:

“Write for yourself these words,”

and we expound:

“These” you write, but you do not write halakhot, midrash

and aggadot.

It is difficult: How could Rav Dimi say that he sent this exposition in a letter?

And we answer:

They said!

Perhaps

it is possible that since it was

a new matter,

a new matter through which the beraitot are reconciled, and Rav Joseph did not know it—therefore

it is different,

the law is different, and it is permitted.

And the Gemara brings proof for this reasoning:

For Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish would examine

what they were accustomed to examine

in a book of aggada,

in the midrashim of the Torah,

on Shabbat,

so that they would not forget them,

and they expounded thus,

and their permission was based on this verse: It is stated in Psalms [119]:

“It is a time to act for the Lord—

they have violated Your Torah,”

when one performs the matter for the sake of the sanctity of the Lord— \-

it is proper to violate Your Torah. That is to say, the prohibition against writing the Oral Torah.

They said,

and they added and said:

It is better

that

one letter be uprooted

from the Torah,

that is, the prohibition against writing the Oral Torah,

and let the Torah not be forgotten from Israel,

for if they did not write them and examine them, they would be entirely forgotten.

The Gemara returns to the law of libations.

Rav Pappa said: Now that you have said, “Libations that come on their own may be offered even at night,”

it is not necessary to sanctify them in a service vessel during the day, but

if he happened upon

libations at night, he sanctifies them at night and offers them.

Rav Joseph, son of Rav Shemaya, said to Rav Pappa: It was taught

in a beraita,

which supports you: This is the principle: Anything that is offered during the day—

is not sanctified except during the day. And anything that is offered at night—

is sanctified at night .

The statement above—that libations that come on their own may be sacrificed even at night and may be sanctified in a service vessel at night—applies specifically when they are sanctified and sacrificed that same night. But if he sanctified them at night, he may not wait until the following day, since they will become disqualified through linah at dawn.

The statement mentioned above, that libations that come on their own may be offered even at night and are sanctified in a service vessel at night, applies specifically in this order, that he sanctifies them and offers them that same night. But if he sanctified them at night, he cannot wait with them until the following day, because they will become invalid through “remaining overnight” in the morning, at daybreak.

Just as limbs and fats, which are offered throughout the entire night, if they were not placed on the altar by daybreak, become invalid through “remaining overnight.”

And what they said above, that one brings libations even from now until ten days from now, does not mean that they become sanctified today and he brings them tomorrow. Rather, they must be sanctified on the day they are brought, so that they will not become invalid through “remaining overnight.”

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: And daybreak renders them invalid, just

as it renders

the limbs

of the continual burnt-offering invalid.

Since above we learned in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi the exposition, “And for your libations and for your peace-offerings”: just as peace-offerings are [offered] during the day, so too libations are [offered] during the day, the Gemara brings a beraita in which the entire verse is expounded through several expositions.

It is stated in the Torah [Numbers 29], after all the additional offerings of the festivals: “These you shall offer to the Lord on your festivals, apart from your vows and your freewill offerings, for your burnt-offerings and for your meal-offerings and for your libations and for your peace-offerings.” The entire verse is superfluous for exposition.

When Rav Dimi came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak:

What is stated,

“These you shall offer to the Lord on your festivals”—

these are obligations that come on the festival,

because of the festival, such as the burnt-offering of appearance and the festival peace-offering and the additional offerings of the festival .

And what is stated,

“apart from your vows and your freewill offerings”—

it teaches concerning vows and freewill offerings,

which the Children of Israel vowed and offered voluntarily throughout the entire year—

that they may be offered during the intermediate days of the festival .

And that which is stated,

And

what is stated,

“for your burnt-offerings”—

what is the verse speaking of? If it is speaking of a burnt-offering of a vow,

one who vows, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering,” this is difficult:

“your vows” has already been stated. And if it is speaking of a freewill burnt-offering,

one who says, “This is a burnt-offering,” this is difficult:

“and your freewill offerings” has already been stated. Here, then,

you are compelled to say:

it is speaking only of the burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth and the burnt-offering of a leper,

which are not vowed or offered voluntarily, but are obligations to bring. And the verse comes to teach that they may be offered during the intermediate days of the festival .

And what is stated,

“and for your meal-offerings”—

what is the verse speaking of? If it is speaking of a meal-offering of a vow, it has already been stated; if of a freewill meal-offering, it has already been stated? Here, then, it is speaking only of the meal-offering of a sinner [

for hearing the voice of an oath, an utterance of the lips, and the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, when he brings them in extreme poverty]

and of the meal-offering of jealousy,

the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery.

And what is stated,

“and for your libations and for your peace-offerings”—

it compares libations

that come together with the sacrifice

to peace-offerings: just as peace-offerings are [offered] during the day, so too libations are [offered] during the day,

as explained above.

For this exposition of the comparison, it would have sufficed had it been written, “and for the peace-offerings.” And from what is stated,

“and for your peace-offerings”

it comes

to include the peace-offerings of a nazirite,

which are obligatory and not freewill offerings, for vows and freewill offerings have already been included by “your vows and your freewill offerings.” And the verse teaches you that they may be offered during the intermediate days of the festival.

We learned above: What is stated, “and for your peace-offerings,” comes to include “the peace-offerings of a nazirite.” And it implies that the “peace-offerings of a nazirite” are not something that is vowed or offered voluntarily, for if so, they were already included through what is stated, “your vows and your freewill offerings”; and concerning this the Gemara discusses. There is reason to say that they are called vowed and voluntary, since their entire obligation comes through naziriteship, for which he was not obligated and which he vowed upon himself; it follows that his sacrifices too are through a vow. On the other hand, one can say that he did not vow upon himself except abstention from wine and shaving, while the sacrifices are imposed upon him as an “obligation” by the Torah.

And there is a practical legal difference in this matter, concerning a “private altar,” as will be explained.

Abaye said to

Rav Dimi [who brought this beraita from the Land of Israel]:

Let the Master say,

let Rabbi say: What the Torah wrote, “and for your peace-offerings,” comes to include

“the peace-offerings of the Paschal offering,”

which are sacrifices of the festival offering of the fourteenth of Nisan, brought together with the Paschal offering when a large group of many eaters was counted for it, and the Paschal offering was not sufficient for them to eat, since the Paschal offering is eaten when one is satiated. And if they set them aside for the purpose of “the festival offering of the fourteenth” and did not offer them on the eve of Passover, the verse comes to include them, permitting their offering during the intermediate days of the festival.

And what is the advantage of saying this?

For if,

as you say,

the peace-offerings of a nazirite,

this is difficult: Why is it necessary to include them? Are not the peace-offerings of a nazirite something

that is vowed and offered voluntarily,

and vows and freewill offerings have already been included, permitting their offering during the intermediate days of the festival?

And the peace-offerings of the Paschal offering were not included through “vows and freewill offerings,” for it is an “obligation” to bring them, as is explicit in tractate Pesahim [71a].

Abaye brings proof that “the peace-offerings of a nazirite” are something vowed and offered voluntarily, from the fact that they are offered on a “private altar.”

When the Tabernacle was established at Gilgal for fourteen years, and at Nob [thirteen years] and at Gibeon [forty-four years], until the building of the First Temple, the Tabernacle was called the “great altar” or the “public altar.” During these periods it was permitted for every individual to make an altar for himself, and it was called a “private altar” or an “individual altar.” The tanna of the following beraita holds that on a private altar it is permitted to offer only something vowed or offered voluntarily, such as a burnt-offering and peace-offerings, but not a Paschal offering and other obligatory sacrifices .

For

it

it was taught:

This is the principle: Anything that is offered voluntarily and vowed may be offered on an individual altar, and

every

thing that is not offered voluntarily and vowed may not be offered on an individual altar. And it was taught

in another beraita:

The meal-offerings and the naziriteship offerings,

the sacrifices of a nazirite,

may be offered on an individual altar;

these are

the words of Rabbi Meir.

It is proven that the peace-offerings of a nazirite are vowed and offered voluntarily, for if not, they would not be offered on an individual altar.

And Abaye asks: Why should we include the peace-offerings of a nazirite? Vows and freewill offerings have already been included.

And we answer,

Rav Joseph said:

The peace-offerings of a nazirite are not “vowed and offered voluntarily,” as explained above, since it is an obligation to bring them. And what the beraita said, “the meal-offerings and the naziriteship offerings”—

delete

from here

the naziriteship offerings,

and indeed, the peace-offerings of naziriteship are not offered on an individual altar. [

Other books

Rav Dimi said: Do not delete the naziriteship offerings from here!

And it is not difficult:

It is a dispute between tannaim,

it is a dispute between tannaim.

This

that we learned, “the meal-offerings and the naziriteship offerings”—

it is Rabbi Meir,

and he holds that it is vowed and offered voluntarily.

And this,

that we learned above, “and for your peace-offerings,” to include the peace-offerings of a nazirite—

it is the Rabbis,

who hold that it is not vowed and offered voluntarily].

And we are astonished:

Is there anyone who says that a nazirite is not something vowed and offered voluntarily?!

The Gemara brings proof from the fact that Absalom son of David, who was a “permanent nazirite” [Nazir 4b], shaving the hair of his naziriteship from time to time, and offering sacrifices for his purification shaving, lived at the time when the Tabernacle stood at Gibeon. Nevertheless, he went from Jerusalem, his place of residence, to Hebron, where he had an individual altar, in order to offer the sacrifices of his naziriteship.

But is it not written [ [A0003]Samuel II 15]

II Samuel 15]

“And it came to pass at the end of forty years, and Absalom said to the king: Let me go, please, and I shall fulfill my vow which I vowed to the Lord in Hebron. For your servant vowed a vow when I dwelt in Geshur in Aram, saying: If the Lord will indeed bring me back to Jerusalem —

“then I shall serve the Lord.” [ [A0006]And the king gave him permission — and there he rebelled against his father].

And the king gave him permission—but there he rebelled against his father.

What [does this mean],

why did he say that he was going to Hebron, and was it not

to offer

to shave and offer there the sacrifices of his naziriteship? And even though it was a private altar, it proves that the sacrifices of a nazir are something that is vowed and voluntarily offered!

And we reject this:

No!

And this is what he said: “Let me go, please, to offer my sacrifices at the great altar that is in Gibeon.” And that which he said, “which I vowed to the Lord in Hebron” — its meaning is:

with regard to the essence [ [A0019]with regard to the essence]

the essence of]

of his vow —

he said,

that is, I vowed when I was in Hebron.

And there is no proof from here that he offered his sacrifices in Hebron at a private altar.

And we wonder: was

the essence of his vow in Hebron? But surely in Geshur

was it?

As it is stated [there]: “For your servant vowed a vow when I dwelt in Geshur in Aram, and so on.”

And we resolve it:

Rav Aḥa said, and some say Rabbah bar Ḥanan:

Indeed, he offered his sacrifices in Gibeon, and he vowed his vow in Geshur; and concerning the vow that he vowed, he said, “which I vowed to the Lord,” while what he said, “in Hebron” —

Absalom went only to bring sheep from Hebron,

for the sheep [and rams] there are fat and choice, as it is stated in tractate Menahot [87a]. And the meaning of the verse is: Let me go, please, to Hebron to bring sheep, and I shall bring them to Gibeon, and there I shall shave and offer the sacrifices of my naziriteship, which I vowed in Geshur.

And we say:

This too is more understandable, for if you say that he went to Hebron in order to offer

there, and your intention is to bring proof that it is permitted to offer them at a private altar, why did he need to go as far as Hebron? And did he

abandon Jerusalem

his place of residence,

and go and offer in Hebron,

when he could also offer in Jerusalem at a private altar?!

It is necessary to say that he did not go there to offer, but rather to bring sheep.

And we challenge this:

But if so, he went to bring sheep from Hebron,

then

this phrase, “which I vowed to the Lord ‘in Hebron,’”

why did he say this? Surely

he should have said, “from Hebron”?

And we conclude:

Rather, always

he went to Hebron

to offer,

and the sacrifices of naziriteship are offered at a private altar.

And

what

is difficult for you, why did he abandon Jerusalem and offer in Hebron, let this be difficult for you:

Why did he abandon

Gibeon, which is a holy place,

where there was the great altar and the Tabernacle that Moses made?

Rather,

you were forced to explain that he went to Hebron to take sheep, and since he was there, he offered there, and it makes no difference at which private altar he offers, for

once the private altars were permitted, wherever he wishes,

whether in Jerusalem or in Hebron,

he offers.

And the Gemara continues to explain the verse concerning Absalom, where it is stated: “And it came to pass at the end of forty years.”

And the Gemara discusses:

Forty years with regard to what is it taught?

For which event were forty years counted? Surely only thirty-seven years had passed of David’s reign!

It was taught,

we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Nehorai says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: At the end of forty years

from the time

that Israel asked for themselves

Israel

a king.

And Absalom knew that David was destined to reign for forty years, and when forty years had been completed from the time that they asked for themselves a king [and during these forty years Samuel, Saul, and David reigned, as will be explained], Absalom erred and said: “Now my father’s end has arrived, and I shall go to Hebron to have the kingship transferred to me there” .

And from where [do we know] that forty years had passed from the time that they asked for themselves a king?

For it was taught: That year in which they asked for themselves a king was Samuel’s tenth year.