kohen

I conjure ye anew, O spirits, by all the names of God, and by all his marvellous work; by the heavens; by the earth; by the sea; by the depth of the Abyss, and by that firmament which the very spirit of God hath moved; by the sun and by the stars; by the waters and by the seas, and all which they contain; by the winds, the whirlwinds, and the tempests; by the virtue of all herbs, plants, and stones; by all which is in the heavens, upon the earth, and in all the abysses of the shades. I conjure ye anew, and I powerfully urge ye, O Demons, in whatsoever part of the world ye may be, so that ye shall be unable to remain in air, fire, water, earth, or in any part of the universe, or in any pleasant place which may attract ye; but that ye come promptly to accomplish our desire, and all things that we demand from your obedience. I conjure ye anew by the two Tables of the Law, by the five books of Moses, by the Seven Burning Lamps on the Candlestick of Gold before the face of the Throne of the Majesty of God, and by the Holy of Holies wherein the KOHEN HA-GADUL was alone permitted to enter, that is to say, the High-Priest. I conjure ye by him who hath made the heavens and the earth, and who hath measured those heavens in the hollow of his hand, and enclosed the earth with three of his fingers, who is seated upon the Kerubim and upon the Seraphim; and by the Kerubim, which is called the Kerub, which God constituted and placed to guard the Tree of Life, armed with a flaming sword, after that Man had been driven out of Paradise.

How can this be? If he was a Kohen and [the straying animal] was in a cemetery ; or he was an Elder and it was derogatory to his dignity [to be seen leading the animal back] ; or his work was more important than his neighbour's — therefore it is said, "And hide thyself." Why should this be so ? Let one say, "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord"!

R. Johanan said : A Kohen who has committed murder must not lift up his hands; as it is said, "Your hands are full of blood" (ibid.).

He who steps before the Ark should not respond "Amen" after [the benedictions of] the Kohanim because it might cause him confusion. If there be no other Kohen there but himself he does not raise his hands [for the priestly benediction] ; but if he is confident that he can raise his hands and return to the Tefillah, he is permitted.

No, Rav read as kohen, for R. Huna also read as kohen.

No, Rav read as kohen, for R. Huna also read as kohen.

I can understand that R. Huna read as kohen, because even R. Assi and R. Ammi who were important kohanim of Eretz Israel were subject to the authority of R. Huna. But as for Rav, there was Shmuel, who was a kohen and who took precedence over him?

I can understand that R. Huna read as kohen, because even R. Assi and R. Ammi who were important kohanim of Eretz Israel were subject to the authority of R. Huna. But as for Rav, there was Shmuel, who was a kohen and who took precedence over him?

It is also reasonable to assume that Rav read as kohen, because if you should think that he read as an Israelite, why did he say a blessing before reading? It was after the enactment.

nor did I bless [birkat hamazon] before a kohen, nor did I eat from an animal from which the priestly dues were not take out,

Nor did I bless [birkat hamazon] before a Kohen: This implies that this is a positive attribute.

So rather, what is the reason that [Rebbi Yochanon] retracted [his veiw]? Because he found [his veiw point] problematic with the case of a rapist [Ohneis] For it was taught in a barasiah An Ohneis who divorced his wife [in violation of the Torah's commandment], If he is a Yisroel [i.e. a non-Kohen] he takes her back and does not receive malkus. If he is a Kohen, he receives malkus and doesn't take her back.

So rather, what is the reason that [Rebbi Yochanon] retracted [his veiw]? Because he found [his veiw point] problematic with the case of a rapist [Ohneis] For it was taught in a barasiah An Ohneis who divorced his wife [in violation of the Torah's commandment], If he is a Yisroel [i.e. a non-Kohen] he takes her back and does not receive malkus. If he is a Kohen, he receives malkus and doesn't take her back.

Rebbi Ellazer asked him, Where is [the other case]? [Rebbi Yochanon] responded to him, when you look for it [you will find it]. He looked hard and found it. For it was taught in a baraisa An Oneiss who divorces his wife, if he is a Yisroel [a non-Kohen] he takes her back and does not recieve malkus. If he is a Kohen, however, [who is forbiden to marry a divorcee,] he is flogged and does not take her back.

Rebbi Ellazer asked him, Where is [the other case]? [Rebbi Yochanon] responded to him, when you look for it [you will find it]. He looked hard and found it. For it was taught in a baraisa An Oneiss who divorces his wife, if he is a Yisroel [a non-Kohen] he takes her back and does not recieve malkus. If he is a Kohen, however, [who is forbiden to marry a divorcee,] he is flogged and does not take her back.

But Rava had said that a non-Kohen that eats from an Ollah before the zerika outside of the wall would get five sets of malkus according to Rebbi Shimon? He means five prohibitions, [but no malkus].

The text is: Rava said a non-Kohen who eats from an ollah before the zerikah outside of the wall, according to Rebbi Shimon incurs five sets of malkus. But let him also incur malkus from (Exodus 29,33) "And a non-Kohen may not eat them for they are sanctified"? Those words only apply in a case where it is fit for Kohenim, but here it is also not fit for Kohenim.

The text is: Rava said a non-Kohen who eats from an ollah before the zerikah outside of the wall, according to Rebbi Shimon incurs five sets of malkus. But let him also incur malkus from (Exodus 29,33) "And a non-Kohen may not eat them for they are sanctified"? Those words only apply in a case where it is fit for Kohenim, but here it is also not fit for Kohenim.

Rav Gidal says in the name of Rav (a mnemonic: KUZA) A Kohen who eats from a chatas or an asham before the zerikah gets malkus. What is the reason? That the verse states (Exodus 29,33) "And they should eat it that which grants atonement" which implies that only after it grants atonement may it be eaten but not beforehand. And a prohibition implied by a positive commandment [carries the force of] a prohibition.

Rather if this was stated, this was how it was stated: Rav Gidal says in the name of Rav A non-Kohen who eats from a chatas or an asham before the zerikah is exempt. What is the reason? That the verse states (Exodus 29,33) "And they should eat it that which grants atonement" which implies that any place where we can apply "that which grants atonement" we can apply "and a non-Kohen shall not eat for it is holy", but any place where we cannot apply "that which grants atonement" we cannot apply "and a non-Kohen shall not eat for it is holy".

Rather if this was stated, this was how it was stated: Rav Gidal says in the name of Rav A non-Kohen who eats from a chatas or an asham before the zerikah is exempt. What is the reason? That the verse states (Exodus 29,33) "And they should eat it that which grants atonement" which implies that any place where we can apply "that which grants atonement" we can apply "and a non-Kohen shall not eat for it is holy", but any place where we cannot apply "that which grants atonement" we cannot apply "and a non-Kohen shall not eat for it is holy".

Rather if this was stated, this was how it was stated: Rav Gidal says in the name of Rav A non-Kohen who eats from a chatas or an asham before the zerikah is exempt. What is the reason? That the verse states (Exodus 29,33) "And they should eat it that which grants atonement" which implies that any place where we can apply "that which grants atonement" we can apply "and a non-Kohen shall not eat for it is holy", but any place where we cannot apply "that which grants atonement" we cannot apply "and a non-Kohen shall not eat for it is holy".

And who is the Tanna that argues with Rebbi Yehuda? It is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. As it was taught in a baraisa (Deuteronomy 26,4) "And the Kohen will take the basket from his hand" this teaches ud that Bikorim require waving. These are the words of Rebbi Elezier ben Yaakov. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

He makes [a gezariah shave] of "yad" "yad" (יד יד) from Shelamim, It is written here "And the kohen will take the basket from his hand (יד)", and it is written (Leviticus 7, 30) "His hands (יד) shall bring the fire-offerings of Hashem". Just as here it is referring to the Kohen, so too there it is referring to the Kohen, and just as there it is referring to the owner, so too here it is referring to the owner. How is this accomplished? The Kohen places his hands under where the owner places his hands and waves.

He makes [a gezariah shave] of "yad" "yad" (יד יד) from Shelamim, It is written here "And the kohen will take the basket from his hand (יד)", and it is written (Leviticus 7, 30) "His hands (יד) shall bring the fire-offerings of Hashem". Just as here it is referring to the Kohen, so too there it is referring to the Kohen, and just as there it is referring to the owner, so too here it is referring to the owner. How is this accomplished? The Kohen places his hands under where the owner places his hands and waves.

He makes [a gezariah shave] of "yad" "yad" (יד יד) from Shelamim, It is written here "And the kohen will take the basket from his hand (יד)", and it is written (Leviticus 7, 30) "His hands (יד) shall bring the fire-offerings of Hashem". Just as here it is referring to the Kohen, so too there it is referring to the Kohen, and just as there it is referring to the owner, so too here it is referring to the owner. How is this accomplished? The Kohen places his hands under where the owner places his hands and waves.

He makes [a gezariah shave] of "yad" "yad" (יד יד) from Shelamim, It is written here "And the kohen will take the basket from his hand (יד)", and it is written (Leviticus 7, 30) "His hands (יד) shall bring the fire-offerings of Hashem". Just as here it is referring to the Kohen, so too there it is referring to the Kohen, and just as there it is referring to the owner, so too here it is referring to the owner. How is this accomplished? The Kohen places his hands under where the owner places his hands and waves.

Rebbi Yossi asked [a possible contradiction from the following baraisa,] A Kohen that held in his hand a fig of tevel [untithed produce], and said that this fig has its Terumah portion in its stem, its maaser rishon in its northern part, and its maaser sheni in its southern part, and it is in a year of Maaser Sheni and he is in Jerusaelem or it is in a year of maaser ani and he is in the outskirts, if he then eats it

But if he was a zar [non-Kohen] he would have received two sets of malkus. But if he had originally eaten it [without designating any tithes] he would have only been liable one set of malkus.

There is a case of where on plows a single row, and is liable on it due to eight separate prohibitions. One who [1]plows with an ox and a donkey, [2,3]which are sanctified, over [4]mixed seeds in a vineyard [5]on the sabbatical year, [6]on a holiday, and he is a [7]Kohen and a [8]Nazir in a house of tumah.

Another time, they were ascending to Jerusalem, .When they came to Har haTzofim, they tore their clothes. When they reached the Temple Mount, they saw a fox emerging from the place of the Holy of Holies. They started to cry, but Rabbi Akiva was laughing. The other sages said to him, Why are you laughing? He said to them, Why do you weep? They replied The place about which was written (Numbers 1,51) "and the non-Kohen that draws near shall be put to death", is now a haunt of foxes and we should not weep!?