Temurah 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

No

do not erase it;

you need not erase

“the meal-offering of libations” from the baraita;

from that baraita! For according to the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, it can be resolved without erasing it—

And there is no difficulty

in the contradiction between the two baraitot:

Here,

the baraita that said that the meal-offering of libations is among those offerings whose usual time of sacrifice is during the day is speaking

of libations that come together with the offering,

as the baraita indeed stated: “the meal-offering of libations.” Since the slaughter of the offering sanctified them with intrinsic sanctity, they may therefore be sacrificed only during the day, as explained—

Whereas

here,

the baraita that said that libations may be sacrificed at night is speaking

of libations that come on their own,

without an offering, since they were not sanctified through the slaughter of an offering. Therefore, they may be sacrificed even at night.

The Gemara discusses the statement of Rabbi Dimi, who would send a letter to Rav Yosef and write to him Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s exposition. Is it not the case that “you may not write matters transmitted orally”? And we raise the following objection:

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 in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Those who write halakhot

are

like those who burn the Torah,

because the writings may not be rescued from a fire on Shabbat, and it is consequently as though one caused words of Torah to be burned. Another version: Because it is forbidden to leave them in his possession in written form, and they must be placed in geniza or burned; consequently, one who writes them causes them to be burned.

And one who studies from them,

from these written texts,

does not receive a reward.

The Gemara brings additional statements of tannaim and amoraim concerning the prohibition against writing the Oral Torah:

And Rabbi Yehuda bar Naḥmani, the interpreter of Reish Lakish, expounded: One verse says

[Exodus 34]

“Write these words for yourself,”

indicating that they were given to be written,

but

another

verse says

[there]

“For by the mouth of these words,”

indicating that they were not given to be written. How is this to be understood?

This is to teach you: Matters transmitted orally may not be recited from writing. And

matters

that are written—

may not be recited orally.

And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

The Torah says [there],

“Write these words for yourself,”

and we expound:

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

or aggadot.

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

And we answer:

They said:

Perhaps

since it was

a novel matter,

a new teaching through which the baraitot could be reconciled, and Rav Yosef did not know it,

it is different;

the law is different in this case, and it is permitted.

The Gemara brings proof for this reasoning:

For Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish would study,

they would examine

a book of aggadic teachings

containing expositions of the Torah,

on Shabbat,

so that they would not forget them,

and they expounded as follows:

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

“It is a time to act for the Lord—

they have nullified Your Torah,”

when the matter is done for the sake of the sanctity of the Lord—

it is appropriate to nullify Your Torah. That is, the prohibition against writing the Oral Torah.

They said,

and they added:

It is better

that

one letter

of the Torah be uprooted,

namely, the prohibition against writing the Oral Torah,

than that the Torah be forgotten from Israel,

for if they did not write these teachings and study them, they would be forgotten entirely.

The Gemara returns to the law of libations.

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

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

if he happened upon

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

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

that we learned a baraita

that supports you: This is the general rule: Anything sacrificed during the day—

is sanctified only during the day. And anything sacrificed 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.

Just as limbs and fats that are sacrificed throughout the night become disqualified through linah if they were not placed on the altar by dawn.

And what was said above—that one may bring libations even from now until ten days from now—does not mean that they are sanctified today and brought tomorrow. Rather, they must be sanctified on the day they are brought, so that they will not become disqualified through linah.

“

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: And dawn disqualifies them, just as

it disqualifies

the limbs

of the daily burnt-offering.”

Since earlier we learned in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi the exposition “And for your libations and your peace-offerings”: Just as peace-offerings are offered during the day, so libations are offered during the day, the Gemara brings a baraita in which the entire verse is expounded in several ways.

The Torah states [Numbers 29], following all the additional offerings of the festivals: “These you shall offer to the Lord on your festivals, besides your vows and your freewill offerings, for your burnt-offerings, your meal-offerings, your libations, and your peace-offerings.” The entire verse is superfluous for purposes of exposition.

When Rav Dimi came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak:

That which is stated,

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

these are obligations that come on account of the pilgrimage festival,

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

And that which is stated,

“besides your vows and your freewill offerings”—

it teaches concerning vows and freewill offerings

that the Children of Israel vowed and volunteered throughout the year—

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

And that which 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 too is difficult:

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

you are compelled to say:

It is speaking only of the burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth and the burnt-offering of a person with leprosy,

which are not brought as vows or freewill offerings, but are obligatory offerings. The verse comes to teach that they may be sacrificed during the intermediate days of the festival.

And that which is stated,

which are not offerings brought because of a vow or a donation, but are obligatory offerings. The verse comes to teach that they may be sacrificed during the intermediate days of the Festival.

“and for your meal-offerings”—

what is the verse speaking of? If it is a meal-offering of a vow, it has already been stated; if it is a freewill meal-offering, it has already been stated. Rather, it is speaking only of the sin-offering meal-offering

[for hearing the voice of an oath, an utterance of the lips, or the ritual impurity of the Temple or its sacred objects, when he brings the offering of the poorest means],

and the meal-offering of jealousy,

the meal-offering of a woman suspected by her husband of adultery.

And that which is stated,

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

it compares the libations

that come with an offering

to the peace-offerings: Just as peace-offerings are offered during the day, so libations are offered during the day,

as explained above.

For this exposition based on the comparison, it would have sufficed if “and for the peace-offerings” had been written. From the fact that it says

“and for your peace-offerings,”

“and for your peace-offerings,”

it comes

to include the peace-offerings of a nazirite,

which are obligatory rather than freewill offerings, since vows and freewill offerings were already included by “your vows and your freewill offerings.” The verse teaches that they may be sacrificed during the intermediate days of the festival.

We learned above: That which is stated, “and for your peace-offerings,” comes to include “the peace-offerings of a nazirite.” This implies that the peace-offerings of a nazirite are not something brought as a vow or freewill offering, since if they were, they would already have been included by “your vows and your freewill offerings.” The Gemara discusses this matter. There is room to say that they are considered voluntary offerings, since the entire obligation arose through the nazirite vow, which he was not otherwise obligated to undertake and which he imposed upon himself; consequently, his offerings too are considered part of his vow. Conversely, one may say that he did not vow concerning himself except with regard to wine and cutting his hair, while the offerings are imposed upon him as an obligation by the Torah.

There is a practical halakhic difference in this matter, concerning a private altar, as will be explained.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi

[who had brought this baraita from Eretz Yisrael]:

Let the Master say

that what the Torah wrote, “and for your peace-offerings,” comes to include

“the peace-offerings of Pesaḥ,”

which are the festival offerings of the fourteenth of Nisan, brought together with the Paschal offering when a large group with many people who will eat was registered for it, and the Paschal offering is insufficient for them, since the Paschal offering is eaten only when one is already satiated. If they set these offerings aside for the purpose of “the festival offering of the fourteenth” but did not sacrifice them on the eve of Pesaḥ, the verse comes to include them and permit their sacrifice during the intermediate days of the festival.

And what advantage is there to saying this?

For if,

as you say, it refers to

the peace-offerings of a nazirite,

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

brought as a vow or freewill offering,

and vows and freewill offerings have already been included to permit their sacrifice during the intermediate days of the festival?

The peace-offerings of Pesaḥ were not included by “vows and freewill offerings,” since bringing them is obligatory, as is explicit in tractate Pesaḥim [71a].

“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 construction of the First Temple, the Tabernacle was called “the great altar” or “the communal altar.” During these periods, it was permitted for each individual to make an altar for himself, which was called “a private altar” or “an individual’s altar.” The tannai of the following baraita maintains that on a private altar it is permitted to sacrifice only something brought as a vow or freewill offering, such as a burnt-offering or peace-offerings, but not the Paschal offering or other obligatory offerings.

For

it

it was taught:

This is the general rule: Anything brought as a freewill offering or as a vow may be sacrificed on an individual’s altar, and

anything

not brought as a freewill offering or as a vow may not be sacrificed on an individual’s altar. And it was taught

in another baraita:

The meal-offerings and the nazirite offerings,

the offerings of a nazirite,

may be sacrificed on an individual’s altar.

These are

the words of Rabbi Meir.

It is evident that the peace-offerings of a nazirite are brought as a vow or freewill offering, since otherwise they could not be sacrificed on an individual’s altar.

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

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said:

The peace-offerings of a nazirite are not “something brought as a vow or freewill offering,” as explained above, since bringing them is obligatory. And as for what the baraita said, “the meal-offerings and the nazirite offerings”—

erase

[the words]

“the nazirite offerings” from here,

and indeed, the peace-offerings of a nazirite may not be sacrificed on an individual’s altar. [

Other texts

Rav Dimi said: Do not erase “the nazirite offerings” from here!

And there is no difficulty:

It is a dispute between tannaim,

there is a dispute between tannaim.

This

that we learned, “the meal-offerings and the nazirite offerings,” is the opinion of

Rabbi Meir,

who maintains that they are brought as vows or freewill offerings.

And this,

what we learned above, that “and for your peace-offerings” comes to include the peace-offerings of a nazirite, is the opinion of

the Sages,

who maintain that they are not brought as vows or freewill offerings].

And we are astonished:

Is there anyone who says that a nazirite offering is not brought as a vow or freewill offering?!

The Gemara brings proof from the fact that Absalom, son of David, who was a “permanent nazirite” [Nazir 4b] and cut the hair of his nazirite vow from time to time, would bring the offerings of purification upon cutting his hair. This took place when the Tabernacle stood at Gibeon, and nevertheless he traveled from Jerusalem, his place of residence, to Hebron, where he had an individual’s altar, in order to sacrifice the offerings of his nazirite vow.

But is it not written [

II Samuel 15]

“And it came to pass at the end of forty years, that Absalom said to the king: Please let me go and pay my vow that 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.” [

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

What [then],

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

for offering

his nazirite offerings there, in order to shave and offer them? And even though it was a private bama, this proves that a nazirite’s offerings are something that may be vowed and voluntarily donated!

And we reject this:

No!

This is what he said: “Please let me go and offer my offerings at the great bama that is in Gibeon.” And what he said, “which I vowed to the Lord in Hebron,” means:

with regard to the essence of [

the essence of]

his vow—

he said,

that is, I vowed it when I was in Hebron.

There is therefore no proof from here that he offered his offerings in Hebron, at a private bama.

And we wonder: Was

the essence of his vow really in Hebron? But it was in Geshur

was it not?

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

And we answer:

Rav Aḥa said, and some say Rabbah bar Ḥanan:

Indeed, he offered his offerings in Gibeon, and he made his vow in Geshur; and concerning the vow that he had made, he said, “which I vowed to the Lord.” And when he said “in Hebron”— \-

Absalom went only to bring sheep from Hebron,

where the sheep [and rams] are fat and choice, as stated in tractate Menahot [87a]. The meaning of the verse is: “Please let me go to Hebron to bring sheep, and I will bring them to Gibeon, where I will shave and offer the offerings of my naziriteship that I vowed in Geshur.”

And we say:

This is also reasonable, for if you say that he went to Hebron in order to offer

there, and you wish to bring proof that they may be offered at a private bama, why did he need to go as far as Hebron? Would he

leave Jerusalem

his place of residence,

and go and offer in Hebron,

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

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

And we challenge this:

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

if so,

why did he say, “which I vowed to the Lord ‘in Hebron,’”

why did he say this? Surely

he should have said, “from Hebron”!

And we conclude:

Rather, in fact

he went to Hebron

to offer,

and the offerings of naziriteship may be offered at a private bama.

And

what

you find difficult—why did he leave Jerusalem and offer in Hebron—should be difficult for you:

Why did he leave

Gibeon, which is a holy place,

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

Rather,

you are forced to explain that he went to Hebron to obtain sheep, and once he was there, he offered there, and it makes no practical difference at which private bama he offered, for

once the bamot were permitted, wherever he wished,

whether in Jerusalem or in Hebron,

he could offer.

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

The Gemara discusses this:

Forty years with regard to what event are they stated?

With regard to which event were the forty years counted? After all, only thirty-seven years had passed since the beginning of David’s reign!

It is 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 they asked for

Israel

a king.

And Absalom knew that David was destined to reign for forty years, and when forty years had elapsed from the time that they asked for a king [and during those forty years Samuel, Saul, and David reigned, as will be explained], he erred and said: “Now my father’s term has come to an end, and I will go to Hebron to transfer the kingship to myself there” .

And from where do we know that forty years had elapsed from the time that they asked for a king?

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