leviticus

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri say: They did not dispute regarding transgression of the same name, that in that case he is liable. About what did they dispute? About transgressions of different names: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat, And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: even if he intended to pick figs and he picked grapes, or grapes and he picked figs, white [grapes] and he picked black ones, or black and he picked white ones Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat. And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: I wonder whether Rabbi Joshua indeed declared him exempt in such a case. For then why is it written, “with which he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:23)? To exclude mindless action.

If a man set aside his hatat and then died, his son should not offer it after him. A man may not offer [what was set apart] for one sin for another sin. Even if he had set apart [the hatat] for forbidden fat that he had eaten yesterday, he may not offer it for forbidden fat that he has eaten today, for it is said, “His offering ... for his sin” (Leviticus 4:28) the offering must be for that particular sin.

Rabbi Shimon says: lambs are mentioned before goats in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “And if he brings a lamb as his offering,” (Leviticus 4:32) to teach that both are equal. Turtle-doves are mentioned before young pigeons in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “A young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a hatat,” (Leviticus 12:6) to teach that both are equal. The father comes before the mother in all places. You might think that it is because the honor due a father is greater than the honor due a mother, therefore Scripture states, “A man shall fear his mother and his father,” (Leviticus 19: to teach that both are equal. But the sages have said: the father comes before the mother in all places, because both a son and his mother are obligated to honor the father. And so it is also with the study of Torah; if the son has been worthy [to sit] before the teacher, the teacher comes before the father in all places, because both a man and his father are obligated to honor the teacher.

Rabbi Shimon says: lambs are mentioned before goats in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “And if he brings a lamb as his offering,” (Leviticus 4:32) to teach that both are equal. Turtle-doves are mentioned before young pigeons in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “A young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a hatat,” (Leviticus 12:6) to teach that both are equal. The father comes before the mother in all places. You might think that it is because the honor due a father is greater than the honor due a mother, therefore Scripture states, “A man shall fear his mother and his father,” (Leviticus 19: to teach that both are equal. But the sages have said: the father comes before the mother in all places, because both a son and his mother are obligated to honor the father. And so it is also with the study of Torah; if the son has been worthy [to sit] before the teacher, the teacher comes before the father in all places, because both a man and his father are obligated to honor the teacher.

Rabbi Shimon says: lambs are mentioned before goats in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “And if he brings a lamb as his offering,” (Leviticus 4:32) to teach that both are equal. Turtle-doves are mentioned before young pigeons in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “A young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a hatat,” (Leviticus 12:6) to teach that both are equal. The father comes before the mother in all places. You might think that it is because the honor due a father is greater than the honor due a mother, therefore Scripture states, “A man shall fear his mother and his father,” (Leviticus 19: to teach that both are equal. But the sages have said: the father comes before the mother in all places, because both a son and his mother are obligated to honor the father. And so it is also with the study of Torah; if the son has been worthy [to sit] before the teacher, the teacher comes before the father in all places, because both a man and his father are obligated to honor the teacher.

He then took a knife and separated the lung from the liver and the finger of the liver from the liver, but he did not remove it from its place. He cut out the breast and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp]. He came to the right flank and cut into it as far as the spine, without touching the spine, until he came to the place between two small ribs. He cut it off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], with the liver attached to it. He then came to the neck, and he left two ribs on each side of it, cut it off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], with the windpipe and the heart and the lung attached to it. He then came to the left flank in which he left the two thin ribs above and two thin ribs below; and he had done similarly with the other flank. Thus he left two on each side above and two on each side below. He cut it off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], and the spine with it and the spleen attached to it. This was really the largest piece, but the right flank was called the largest, because the liver was attached to it. He then came to the tail bone, which he cut off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], along with the tail, the finger of the liver and the two kidneys. He then took the left leg and cut it off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp]. Thus they were all standing in a row with the limbs in their hands The first had the head and the [right] hind leg. The head was in his right hand with its nose towards his arm, its horns between his fingers, and the place where it was severed turned upwards with the fat covering it. The right leg was in his left hand with the place where the flaying began turned away from him. The second had the two fore legs, the right leg in his right hand and the left leg in his left hand, the place where the flaying began turned away from him. The third had the tail bone and the other hind leg, the tail bone in his right hand with the tail hanging between his fingers and the finger of the liver and the two kidneys with it, and the left hind leg in his left hand with the place where the flaying began turned away from him. The fourth had the breast and the neck, the breast in his right hand and the neck in his left hand, its ribs being between two of his fingers. The fifth had the two flanks, the right one in his right hand, and the left one in his left hand, with the place where the flaying began turned away from him. The sixth had the innards on a platter with the knees on top of them. The seventh had the fine flour. The eighth had the griddle cakes. The ninth had the wine. They went and placed them on the lower half of the ramp on its western side, and salted them (see Leviticus 2:13). They then came down and went to the Chamber of Hewn Stone to recite the Shema.

They went and stood on the steps of the Sanctuary. The first ones stood at the south side of their fellow priests with five vessels in their hands: one held the teni, the second the kuz, the third the firepan, the fourth the dish, and the fifth the spoon and its covering. They blessed the people with a single blessing, except in the country they recited it as three blessings, in the Temple as one. In the Temple they pronounced the divine name as it is written, but in the country by its substitute. In the country the priests raised their hands as high as their shoulders, but in the Temple above their heads, except the high priest, who did not raise his hands above the diadem. Rabbi Judah says: the high priest also raised his hands above the diadem, since it says, “And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them” (Leviticus 9:22).

A priest who is blind in one eye or the light of whose eyes is dim should not inspect negaim; for it says, "Wherever the priest's eyes can see" (Leviticus 13:12). In a dark house one may not open up windows in order to inspect his nega.

What is the procedure for the inspection of a house? "The owner of the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, "Something like a plague has appeared upon my house" (Leviticus 14:35). Even if he is a learned sage and knows that it is definitely a nega, he may not speak with certainty saying, "A plague has appeared upon my house," but rather, "Something like a plague has appeared upon my house." "The priest shall order the house cleared before the priest enters to examine the plague, so that nothing in the house may become unclean; after that the priest shall enter to examine the house." Even bundles of wood and even bundles of reeds [must be removed], the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon said: clearing keeps him occupied. Rabbi Meir said: But which [of his goods] could become unclean? If you were to say, his articles of wood, of cloth or of metal, he could immerse them and they will become clean. What is it that the Torah has spared? His earthenware, even his cruse and his bucket. If the Torah thus spared a man's humble possessions, how much more so would it spare his cherished possessions! If for his material possessions, how much more so for the life of his sons and daughters! If for the possessions of a wicked man, how much more so for the possessions of a righteous one!

[The priest] must not go into his own house to isolate it, nor may he stand within the house in which there is a nega. Rather, he must stand at the door of the house in which is there is a nega, and isolate it from there, as it is said, "The priest shall come out of the house to the entrance of the house, and close up the house for seven days" (Leviticus 14:38). He comes again at the end of the week and inspects the sign to see if it spread. "The priest shall order the stones with the plague in them to be pulled out and cast outside the city into an unclean place" (v.. "They shall take other stones and replace those stones with them, and take other dirt and plaster the house" (v.. He must not take stones from the one side and bring them to the other; nor earth from the one side and bring it to the other; nor lime from anywhere. He must not bring one stone to replace two, nor two to replace one. But he can bring two to replace two or to replace three or to replace four. From here they have said: Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor. Both must take out the stones, both must scrape the walls, and both must bring the new stones. He alone, however, brings the earth, as it is said, "And he shall take other coating and plaster the house." His neighbor need not join with him in the plastering.

He comes again at the end of the week and inspects the nega. If it has returned, "He shall break down the house, its stones, and its timber, and all the mortar of the house; and he shall carry them out of the city into an unclean place" (Leviticus 14:45). A spreading that adjoins [the original nega] is effective however small it may be; One that is distant must be no less than the size of a split bean. And a nega that returns in houses must be no less than the size of two split beans.

He now comes to set free the living bird. He does not turn his face towards the sea or towards the city or towards the wilderness, for it is said, "But he shall let the living bird go out of the city into the open field" (Leviticus 14:53). He now comes to shave off the hair of the metzora. He passes a razor over the whole of his skin, and he [the metzora] washes his clothes and immerses himself. He is then clean so far as to not convey uncleanness by entrance, but he still conveys uncleanness as does a sheretz. He may enter within the walls [of Jerusalem], but must keep away from his house for seven days, and he is forbidden to have intercourse.

[The priest] then took some [of the contents] of the log of oil and poured it into his colleague's hand; And if he poured it into his own hand, the obligation is fulfilled. He then dipped [his right forefinger] in the oil and sprinkled it seven times towards the Holy of Holies, dipping it for every sprinkling. He then approached the metzora, to the same places that he applied the blood he now applied the oil, as it is said, "Over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord." (Leviticus 14:28-29). If he "put upon," he has made atonement, but if he did not "put upon," he did not make atonement, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: these are but the remainders of the mitzvah. Whether he "put upon" or did not "put upon," atonement is made, only it is accounted to him as if he did not make atonement. If any oil was missing from the log before it was poured out it may be filled up again; if after it was poured out, other oil must be brought anew, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: if any oil was missing from the log before it was applied, it may be filled up; but if after it had been applied, other oil must be brought anew.

For a fetus born from its mother's side, she does not sit the prescribed days of uncleanness nor the days of cleanness, nor does one incur on its account the obligation to bring a sacrifice. Rabbi Shimon says: it is regarded as a regular birth. All women are subject to uncleanness [as soon as the blood appears] in the outer chamber, as it says, "her discharge being blood in her body" (Leviticus 15:19). But a zav and one who emitted semen convey no uncleanness unless the discharge came out of the body.

One writes Torah and Prophets together, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, one does not write Torah and Prophets together, but one may write Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographs together. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Torah and Ḥumashim have the same sanctity. One does not split a Torah into Ḥumashim, but one turns Ḥumashim into a Torah. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a Torah which was split into Ḥumashim remains in its sanctity. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: One does not read in public from an incomplete Torah. But was it not stated: It is permitted to read in public in Genesis up to the deluge, in Leviticus up to it was on the eighth day, in Numbers up to it was when the Ark travelled? This Ursicinus set fire to the Torah of the Sennabarites. They came and asked Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, whether one may read from the scroll in public. They told them, it is forbidden. Not that it is forbidden but since they will feel so badly they will buy another one.

MISHNAH: On Passover one reads the section about holidays in Leviticus. On Pentecost, seven weeks. On New Year’s Day, in the Seventh month on the First of the month On the Day of Atonement, after the death On the first day of Tabernacles one reads the section about holidays in Leviticus; on the remaining days about the sacrifices of the holiday.

MISHNAH: On Passover one reads the section about holidays in Leviticus. On Pentecost, seven weeks. On New Year’s Day, in the Seventh month on the First of the month On the Day of Atonement, after the death On the first day of Tabernacles one reads the section about holidays in Leviticus; on the remaining days about the sacrifices of the holiday.

HALAKHAH: “On Pentecost, seven weeks.” There are Tannaim who state, in the third month “And on New Year’s Day, and in the Seventh month.” There are Tannaim who state, and the Eternal counted Sarah. “On the Day of Atonement, after the death. On the first day of Tabernacles one reads the section about holidays in Leviticus; on the remaining days about the sacrifices of the holiday.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa, to teach you that the world only exists by the sacrifices.

HALAKHAH: “One does not interrupt curses.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said, do not be repelled by his reproach, do not split it into many thorns. Rebbi Levi said, the Holy One, praise to Him, said that it is not logical that My children be cursed and I praised. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not because of that reason but because one who stands up to read in the Torah needs to start with something good and conclude with something good. Levi bar Paṭi asked Rav Ḥuna: these curses which we read as one, should one recite a benediction before and after? He said to him, nothing needs a benediction before and after except the curses in Leviticus and the curses in Deuteronomy. Rebbi Jonathan the scribe of Gufta came down here; he saw Bar Abuna reading the Song of the Well and recite a benediction before and after. He said to him, does one do this? He answered him, you still are about this? All songs need a benediction before and after. Rebbi Simon was asked. Rebbi Simon told them in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, only the Song on the Sea, and the Ten Commandments, and the curses [in Leviticus and the curses] in Deuteronomy need a benediction before and after. Rebbi Abbahu said, I did not hear. It seems reasonable for the Ten Commandments. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: the eight verses in Deuteronomy need a benediction before and after. Without this do not the one who starts and the one who finishes recite the benediction before and after? But it is needed for a New Moon which falls on a Sabbath.

HALAKHAH: “One does not interrupt curses.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said, do not be repelled by his reproach, do not split it into many thorns. Rebbi Levi said, the Holy One, praise to Him, said that it is not logical that My children be cursed and I praised. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not because of that reason but because one who stands up to read in the Torah needs to start with something good and conclude with something good. Levi bar Paṭi asked Rav Ḥuna: these curses which we read as one, should one recite a benediction before and after? He said to him, nothing needs a benediction before and after except the curses in Leviticus and the curses in Deuteronomy. Rebbi Jonathan the scribe of Gufta came down here; he saw Bar Abuna reading the Song of the Well and recite a benediction before and after. He said to him, does one do this? He answered him, you still are about this? All songs need a benediction before and after. Rebbi Simon was asked. Rebbi Simon told them in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, only the Song on the Sea, and the Ten Commandments, and the curses [in Leviticus and the curses] in Deuteronomy need a benediction before and after. Rebbi Abbahu said, I did not hear. It seems reasonable for the Ten Commandments. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: the eight verses in Deuteronomy need a benediction before and after. Without this do not the one who starts and the one who finishes recite the benediction before and after? But it is needed for a New Moon which falls on a Sabbath.

Rabbah answered: Scripture says, "That your generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to dwell in sukkot" (Leviticus 23:43). Up to twenty cubits [high] one knows that he is dwelling in a sukkah, but with one higher than twenty cubits he does not ‘know’ that he is dwelling in a sukkah, since his eye does not catch sight of it.

Rava replied: From the following verse, "You shall dwell in sukkot for seven days" (Leviticus 23:42) the Torah declared: For seven days leave your permanent dwelling place and dwell in a temporary dwelling place. Up to twenty cubits [high] one makes his home a temporary one; higher than twenty cubits, one does not make his home temporary, but permanent.

R. Huna said: [The height of the ark-cover may be deduced] from here, "Upon the face of the ark-cover" (Leviticus 16:14) on the east, and a 'face’ is not smaller than a handbreadth.

But are not [the laws of] interposition from the Torah, as it is written, "And he shall wash his body in water" (Leviticus 14:9) [which implies] that nothing should interpose between him and the water?

Gemara. What is Beth Shammai's reasoning?... Scripture says, "The festival of Sukkot, for seven days unto the Lord" (Leviticus 23:34) we require a Sukkah made expressly for the sake of the festival.

One sukkah above another sukkah… Our Rabbis taught, "You shall dwell in Sukkoth" (Leviticus 23:42), but not in a sukkah under another sukkah, nor in a Sukkah under a tree, nor in a Sukkah within the house. On the contrary! The word "in sukkot" implies two?

What is the reason of R. Judah? He deduces the word ‘take’ from the word ‘take’ mentioned in connection with the bundle of hyssop. It is written there, "And you shall take a bundle of hyssop," (Exodus 12:22) and it is written here, "And you shall take you on the first day" (Leviticus 23:40). Just as there it was taken in a ‘bundle, so here also it must be taken in a bundle. And the rabbis? They do not deduce ‘take’ from ‘take’.

That is satisfactory according to the one who says that [the sukkot of the wilderness were] clouds of glory, but according to the one who says [the Israelites] made for themselves real sukkot, what can one say? For it has been taught: "For I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths" (Leviticus 23:43): These were clouds of glory, the words of R. Eliezer. R. Akiva says: They made for themselves real sukkot. Now this is satisfactory according to R. Eliezer, but according to R. Akiva, what can one say?

It has been taught: R. Eliezer said: Just as one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav belonging to his fellow, since it is written, "And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees" (Leviticus 23:40) i.e., from your own possessions, so too one cannot fulfill his obligation with a Sukkah of his fellow, since it is written, "The festival of Sukkot you shalt keep for yourself for seven days" (Deuteronomy 16:13) i.e. from your own possession.

The sages say: Although they said that one cannot fulfil his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav belonging to his fellow, he may nevertheless fulfill his obligation with the Sukkah of his fellow, since it is written, "All that are homeborn in Israel shall dwell in Sukkot" (Leviticus 23:42) this teaches that all of Israel are fit to sit in one Sukkah

It makes sense for the dry [Lulav]; we need a beautiful one, and it is not. However, with a stolen [Lulav]- it makes sense on the first day of the holiday, as it is written, "For you (Leviticus 23:40)"- meaning from that which is yours. Rather, on the second day of the holiday, why not?

What is the reason of R. Judah? He deduces it from the word "take" [which occurs here (Leviticus 23:40) and with] the "taking" with regard to the bundle of hyssop (Exodus 12:22). It is written here, "And you shall take on the first day" and there it is written, "And you shall take a bundle of hyssop." Just as there [it must be] a bundle, so here also [it must be] a bundle. And the Rabbis? They do not deduce from the mention of the word "take" in the two passages.

The rabbis taught: "The fruit of a goodly tree" (Leviticus 23:40) a tree the taste of whose ‘fruit’ and ‘wood’ is the same. Say then that it is the etrog.

Say that it is pepper, as it has been taught: R. Meir used to say, From that which it says, "And you have planted all manner of trees," (Leviticus 19:23) do I not know that the reference is to a tree for food? What then does Scripture teach by "for food"? A tree whose fruit and wood taste the same. Say then that it is pepper. This is to teach you that the pepper tree is subject to the law of orlah and that the Land of Israel lacks nothing, as it is said, "You shall not lack anything in it"?

There the case is different, since Scripture says, “For you for food” (Leviticus 25:6) thus comparing ‘for you’ to ‘for food’, [anything] whose benefit comes at the time of its consumption [has the sanctity of sabbatical produce]; this excludes firewood since the benefit from it comes after its consumption.

R. Elazar said: Sabbatical year produce is redeemed only by way of sale. But R. Yohanan said: Either by way of sale or by way of exchange. What is the reason of R. Elazar? As it is written, "In this year of Jubilee" (Leviticus 25:13) and then comes the following verse, "And if you sell something to your neighbor" [implying,] only by way of sale, but not by way of exchange.

And what is the reason of R. Yohanan? — Since it is written, "For it is a Jubilee, it shall be holy" (Leviticus 25:12); just as sacred objects can be redeemed either by way of sale or by way of exchange, so the produce of the Sabbatical Year can be redeemed either by way of sale or by way of exchange.

And R. Eleazar, what does he do with the verse of R. Yohanan? He needs it in accordance with what has been taught, "For it is a Jubilee, it shall be holy" (Leviticus 25:12) just as with holy objects the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes the same sanctity, so with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the money [for which it is sold] assumes the same sanctity.

"Until this very day" (Leviticus 23:14) [which means] until the very day itself, and he is of the opinion that the expression ‘until’ is meant to include.

And with regard to the Sukkah itself from where do we derive [that days includes nights]? From what our Rabbis have taught: You shall dwell in booths for seven days,” (Leviticus 23:42) “days” includes the nights. You say that “days’ includes the nights. But maybe it means “days” but not the nights. And this would be logical. For the word “days” is used here, and it is also used in connection with lulav; just as there it means days and not nights, so here also it must mean days and not nights.

Or take it another way: The word “days” is mentioned here, and also in connection with the [seven days of the] preparation, (Leviticus 8:35) just as there it means days and also nights, so here also it must mean days and also the nights.

What is the reason of R. Eliezer b. Jacob? He deduces it from the word “hand” occurring here and in the case of the shelamim-offering. Here it is written, “And the priest shall take the basket out of your hand,” and there it is written, “His own hands shall bring the offering to the Lord,” (Leviticus 7:3)– just as here the priest [takes it and waves it] so there the priest [takes it and waves it],

Scripture says, "They shall receive equal portions to eat," (Deuteronomy 18:8) meaning, as the division of the service [is equal for all], so is the division of the food. Now what food [could this mean]? If you will say that it means the sacrifices, do we not deduce that from a different verse, "It shall be the priest's that offers it?" (Leviticus 7:9). Rather this must refer to the showbread.

Do you really think so? Is it not written, “These are the commandments” (Leviticus 27:34) which implies that no prophet is permitted to introduce anything new afterwards? And further R.Hisda has said: The mem and the samekh in the Tablets

Joshua b. Levi said: A city which was first settled and then walled is reckoned as a village. What is the reason? Because it is written, “And if a man sells a dwelling house of a walled city” (Leviticus 25:29), one, [that is,] which was first walled and then settled, but not first settled and then walled.

If so, why was he in doubt? This is certainly not a wall, as it has been taught: “Which has a wall” (Leviticus 25:30) and not merely a fence of houses. “Round about”: this excludes Tiberias, whose sea is its wall.

As our Rabbis have taught: “And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement upon him” (Leviticus 1:4). R. Shimon says: That which is “upon him” he is obligated to replace but that which is not “upon him” he is not obligated to replace.

Say then that two observations obligate him for a sacrifice but not uncleanness, whereas three means he is uncleanness also? Do not even think this, since it has been taught: “And the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord from his issue” (Leviticus 15:15); [From his issue] implies that zavim bring a sacrifice and some zavim do not bring a sacrifice. How so? If he has three issues, he brings a sacrifice, if only two, he does not bring.

Now that you have said that the words “from his issue” are to be used for a derashah, “And when he that had an issue is cleansed from his issue” (Leviticus 15:13) what do you derive from it?

From where is this derived? — As R. Shmuel b. Yitzchak taught in front of R. Huna: “Then the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is a scab; and he shall wash his clothes and be clean” (Leviticus 13:6); he is clean at the outset from having been liable to rend garments and loosen the hair.

Rather Rava said: From here: “And the metzora in whom the plague is” (Leviticus 13:45) [that means] one whose scale disease is due to the state of his body, excluding this one whose scale disease is due to days.

Abaye said to him: If that is so, then when it says, “All the days during which the plague is in him he shall be unclean” (Leviticus 13:46), are we to say that one whose scale disease is due to his state of body is required to be sent out of the camp, but one whose scale disease is not due to his state of body is not to be sent out of the camp?

Abaye replied: The verse says: “And the priest shall go forth out of the camp, and behold the plague of scale disease is healed in the metzora” (Leviticus 14:3); one whose scale disease is dependent upon healing, and excludes one whose scale disease is not dependent on healing but on days [of isolation].

They also wrote for him (Leviticus 11:6); “the beast with small legs” and they did not write “the hare” because the name of Ptolemy’s wife was hare, lest he should say, “The Jews are playing with me at me and put the name of my wife in the Torah.”

What is the reason of R. Meir? As it has been taught; “[If the] anointed [priest shall sin]” (Leviticus 4:3): I only know of the one anointed with the oil of anointment. From where do I know that this applies also to one who [merely] wears the additional garments? Because it says, the “anointed.”

Two Tannaim report R. Ishmael son of R. Jose differently. Or if you like, I can say that the latter is from R. Elazar b. Yose, as it has been taught: R. Eleazar b. Yose says: “That has [no] wall” (Leviticus 25:30) even though it does not have one now, but it had in previous times.

But is it not written, Vayehi on the eighth day (Leviticus 9:1), and it has been taught: On that day there was joy before the Holy One, blessed be He, as on the day when heaven and earth were created. For it is written, And it came to pass [vayehi] on the eighth day, and it is written there, And there was [vayehi] one day?

Elazar began his discourse on this with the following text: “By laziness he that lays beams (mekoreh) becomes poor [yimak], and through idleness of the hands the house leaks” (Ecclesiastes 10:18). Through Israel’s laziness in not occupying themselves with Torah, the enemy of the Holy One, blessed be He, became poor. The meaning of “makh” is poor, as it says, “And if he is too makh for your evaluation” (Leviticus 27:8), and mekoreh means only the Holy One, blessed be He, as it says, “Who lays the beams [ha-mekareh] of Your upper chambers in the waters” (Psalms 104:3).

Shmuel said from here: “I did not reject them, neither did I abhor them to destroy them utterly” (Leviticus 26:44). “I did not reject them” in the days of the Greeks; “neither did I abhor them” — in the days of Nebuchadnezzar; “to destroy them utterly” — in the days of Haman; “and to break my covenant with them” — in the days of the Persians; “for I am the Lord their God” — in the days of Gog and Magog.

And when the transgressors have disappeared, the horn of the righteous will be exalted, as it is written, “All the horns of the wicked also will I cut off, but the horns of the righteous shall be exalted” (Psalms 95:11). And “righteous converts” are included with the righteous, as it says, “Before the hoary head rise up, and honor the face of the elder”, and the text goes on, “And if a stranger sojourns with you” (Leviticus 19:32).

What was their reason for saying the priestly blessing after thanksgiving? Because it is written, “And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them and he came down from offering the sin-offering and the burnt-offering and the peace-offerings” (Leviticus 9:22).

Neither should one circumcise. As it is written, “And on the eighth day he shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3).

It is necessary, lest you think that she should be the same as the first observation of one who had a genital discharge, and the first observation of one who had a genital discharge has been compared to one who had a seminal issue, as it is written, “This is the law of him that has had a genital discharge (zav) and of him from whom the flow of seed has gone out.” (Leviticus 15:32) Just as one with a seminal issue immerses during the day, so too this one immerses on the same day.

This woman, however, cannot immerse on that day, because it is written, “All the days of her discharge she shall be as in the days of her menstrual impurity”; (Leviticus 15:26) so [you might say], by night at least she might keep watch for a short time and then immerse; therefore we are told that [she must not do this], because she requires to count [day for day];

Gemara. From where do we know this? Because the verse says, “And these days shall be mentioned and kept” (Esther 9:28). For reading the Hallel: As it is written, “From the rising of the sun to its going down” (Psalms 113:3). R. Joseph says: Because it is written, “This is the day which the Lord has made” (Psalms 118:24). For the taking of the lulav: As it is written, “And you shall take for yourself on the first day” (Leviticus 23:40).

For the blowing of the shofar, as it is written, “It is a day of blasting for you” (Numbers 29:1). For the additional sacrifices, as it is written, “Each on its own day” (Leviticus 23:37). And for the musaf prayer: Because the rabbis made them like the additional sacrifices.

And for the confession made over the oxen. For the “atonement” mentioned here is derived from the “atonement” mentioned in the context of Yom Kippur, as it has been taught in reference to Yom Kippur: “And he shall make atonement for himself and for his house” (Leviticus 16:6) the text speaks of atonement made by words. And atonement is by day, as it is written, “For on this day shall atonement be made for you” (Leviticus 16:30).

And for the confession made over the oxen. For the “atonement” mentioned here is derived from the “atonement” mentioned in the context of Yom Kippur, as it has been taught in reference to Yom Kippur: “And he shall make atonement for himself and for his house” (Leviticus 16:6) the text speaks of atonement made by words. And atonement is by day, as it is written, “For on this day shall atonement be made for you” (Leviticus 16:30).

And for waving: as it is written, “And on the day when you wave the sheaf” (Leviticus 23:12).

And for bringing near, for it is compared to waving, as it is written, “And the priest shall take the minhah offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the meal-offering . . . And bring it near [to the altar]” (Numbers 5:25). And for pinching and for taking a handful and for burning and for sprinkling, as it is written, “On the day that He commanded the children of Israel [to present their offerings]” (Leviticus 7:35).

And for breaking the neck of the heifer. In the school of R. Yannai they said: [The word] “atonement” is applied to it as to holy things. And for the purification of the metzora: as it is written, “This shall be the law of the metzora on the day of his cleansing” (Leviticus 14:2).

There was a stone pavement there and it has been taught: “You shall not put any figured stone in your land to bow down upon it” (Leviticus 26:1): On it you may not bow down in your land, but you may bow down on the stones in the Temple. Like Ulla, who said: The Torah [here] is forbidding only a pavement of stone.

GEMARA. From where do we know this? R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: Because the verse says, "But I will be sanctified among the children of Israel" (Leviticus 22:32): every act of sanctification should not be done with less than ten.

R. Abbahu said: It refers to one who says, "My monetary [value] be upon me" as it has been taught: "One who says, My monetary [value] be upon me, we estimate his value as we would that of a slave." And a slave is compared to property, as it is written, "And you shall pass them down as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession" (Leviticus 25:46).

They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. They raised contradiction [between this and the following]: He [the High Priest] reads [on Yom Kippur] “After the death” (Leviticus 16) and “Only on the tenth day” (Leviticus 23:26-32). But he is skipping?

They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. They raised contradiction [between this and the following]: He [the High Priest] reads [on Yom Kippur] “After the death” (Leviticus 16) and “Only on the tenth day” (Leviticus 23:26-32). But he is skipping?

One who uses euphemisms in the portion dealing with forbidden marriages, he is silenced. If he says, [instead of] “And you shall not give any of your seed to be passed to Moloch,” (Leviticus 18:21) “You shall not give [your seed] to pass to a Gentile woman,” he silenced with a rebuke.

They objected: “In a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34): Your possession is defiled by leprosy, but Jerusalem is not defiled by leprosy. Judah said: I have not heard this said except about the area of the Sanctuary alone.

as it says, “And I will desolate your holy places” (Leviticus 26:31)—their holiness remains even when they are desolate.

Bar Kappara gave the following exposition: What is the meaning of the verse, “Why do you look askance [terazedun], mountains of peaks (gavnunim)” (Psalms 68:18). A bat kol (heavenly voice) went forth and said to them: Why do ye desire litigation [tirzu din] with Sinai? You are all full of blemishes as compared with Sinai. It is written here “gavnunim,” and it is written elsewhere “or humpbacked [gibben] or a dwarf” (Leviticus 21:20). Ashi observed: You can learn from this that if a man is arrogant, this is a blemish in him.

On Pesah we read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus (Torat Kohanim) (Leviticus 23:4). On Shavuot, “Seven weeks” (Deuteronomy 16:9). On Rosh Hashanah “On the seventh day on the first of the month” (Leviticus 23:23). On Yom Hakippurim, “After the death” (Leviticus 16). On the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot] they read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus, and on the other days of the Festival [of Sukkot] the [sections] on the offerings of the Festival.

On Pesah we read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus (Torat Kohanim) (Leviticus 23:4). On Shavuot, “Seven weeks” (Deuteronomy 16:9). On Rosh Hashanah “On the seventh day on the first of the month” (Leviticus 23:23). On Yom Hakippurim, “After the death” (Leviticus 16). On the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot] they read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus, and on the other days of the Festival [of Sukkot] the [sections] on the offerings of the Festival.

On Pesah we read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus (Torat Kohanim) (Leviticus 23:4). On Shavuot, “Seven weeks” (Deuteronomy 16:9). On Rosh Hashanah “On the seventh day on the first of the month” (Leviticus 23:23). On Yom Hakippurim, “After the death” (Leviticus 16). On the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot] they read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus, and on the other days of the Festival [of Sukkot] the [sections] on the offerings of the Festival.

On Pesah we read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus (Torat Kohanim) (Leviticus 23:4). On Shavuot, “Seven weeks” (Deuteronomy 16:9). On Rosh Hashanah “On the seventh day on the first of the month” (Leviticus 23:23). On Yom Hakippurim, “After the death” (Leviticus 16). On the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot] they read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus, and on the other days of the Festival [of Sukkot] the [sections] on the offerings of the Festival.

On Pesah we read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus (Torat Kohanim) (Leviticus 23:4). On Shavuot, “Seven weeks” (Deuteronomy 16:9). On Rosh Hashanah “On the seventh day on the first of the month” (Leviticus 23:23). On Yom Hakippurim, “After the death” (Leviticus 16). On the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot] they read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus, and on the other days of the Festival [of Sukkot] the [sections] on the offerings of the Festival.

“And Moshe declared to the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord” (Leviticus 23:44)—it is their mitzvah that each should be read in its appropriate time.

On Yom Kippur we read “After the death” (Leviticus 16) and for haftarah, “For thus said the high and lofty one” (Isaiah 57:14-58) At minhah we read the section of forbidden sexual relationships (Leviticus 18:1-30) and for haftarah the book of Jonah.

On Yom Kippur we read “After the death” (Leviticus 16) and for haftarah, “For thus said the high and lofty one” (Isaiah 57:14-58) At minhah we read the section of forbidden sexual relationships (Leviticus 18:1-30) and for haftarah the book of Jonah.

On the first day of Sukkot we read the section of the festivals in Leviticus, and for haftarah, “Behold a day comes for the Lord” (Zechariah 14:1-21). Now that we keep two days, on the next day we read the same section from the Torah, but what do we read for haftarah? “And all the men of Israel assembled unto King Solomon” (I Kings 8:2-21). On the other days of the festival we read the section of the offerings of the festival.

On the Ninth of Av itself what is the haftarah? Rav said: “How (איכה) has she become a harlot” (Isaiah 1:21). What is the section from the Torah? It has been taught: Others say, But if you will not obey me” (Leviticus 26:14-46); R. Nathan b. Joseph says: “How long will this people despise me” (Numbers 14:11-25); and some say, “How long shall I bear this evil congregation” (Numbers 14:26-46). Abaye said: Nowadays the custom has been adopted of reading [from the Torah] “When you shall bear children” (Deuteronomy 4:25-40), and for haftarah, “I will utterly consume them” (Jeremiah 8:13-9:23).

Abaye said: This rule was taught only with regard to the curses in Leviticus, but the curses in Deuteronomy one may interrupt [their reading]. What is the reason? The former are stated in the plural and Moses said them on behalf of the Almighty. The latter are stated in the singular, and Moses said them in his own name.

Levi b. Buti was once reading the curses [in Deuteronomy] in the presence of R. Huna hesitatingly. R. Huna said to him:... Do just as you want, This rule was taught only with regard to the curses in Leviticus, but the curses in Deuteronomy one may interrupt [their reading].

It has been taught: R. Shimon b. Eleazar says:... Ezra established for Israel that they should read the curses in Leviticus before Shavuot and those in Deuteronomy before Rosh Hashanah. ... What is the reason? Abaye, or you may also say Resh Lakish said: So that the year may end along with its curses.

It makes sense in regard to the curses in Deuteronomy you can say, “so that the year should end along with its curses.” But as regards those In Leviticus, is Shavuot a New Year? Yes; Shavuot is also a New Year, as we have learned: On Shavuot is the new year for [fruit of] the tree.

“And Moses told the children of Israel of the appointed seasons of the Lord” (Leviticus 23:44). It is part of their mitzvah that [the section relating to] each one of them should be read in its season. Our rabbis taught: Moses established for Israel that they should enquire and give derashot concerning the subject of the day the laws of Pesah on Pesah, the laws of Shavuot on Shavuot, and the laws of Sukkot on Sukkot.

He answered him, You taught us, our rebbi, that one cannot derive a punishment from a fortiori. We see this in a beraisa [From what the Torah says,] (Leviticus 20, 17) "If a man should take his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother", I can only derive [that a person is forbidden from] the daughter of his father who isn't the daughter of his mother [half-sister from the father] and the daughter of his mother who isn't the daughter of his father [half-sister from the mother]. From where can I derive [the prohibition for] the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother [his full sister]? The Torah teaches us this with the words ערות אחותו גילה.

We see [the source for being unable to derive] punishment [from a fortiori], but from where do we derive [the rule of not being able to derive] a scriptural warning [from a fortiori]? The Torah says (Leviticus 18,9) "ערות אחותך בת אביך או בת אמך". [From this] I can only derive [a scriptural warning against] the daughter of his father who isn't the daughter of his mother [half-sister from the father] and the daughter of his mother who isn't the daughter of his father [half-sister from the mother]. From where can I derive [the scriptural warning against] the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother [his full sister]? The Torah teaches us this with the words (Leviticus 18,11) "ערות בת אשת אביך מולדת אביך אחותך היא".

We see [the source for being unable to derive] punishment [from a fortiori], but from where do we derive [the rule of not being able to derive] a scriptural warning [from a fortiori]? The Torah says (Leviticus 18,9) "ערות אחותך בת אביך או בת אמך". [From this] I can only derive [a scriptural warning against] the daughter of his father who isn't the daughter of his mother [half-sister from the father] and the daughter of his mother who isn't the daughter of his father [half-sister from the mother]. From where can I derive [the scriptural warning against] the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother [his full sister]? The Torah teaches us this with the words (Leviticus 18,11) "ערות בת אשת אביך מולדת אביך אחותך היא".

Is that to say that “found” [means that the person] was already there from the outset? And pit them against each other [this baraita and the baraita that follows]: “And he found” (Leviticus 25:26) [This verse describes a case in which someone has a third party redeem a field because they do not have funds. If that person is trying to subvert the system and already has the money to redeem, he is not permitted to go through this process of including a third party] excludes [what was already] found, because he may not sell a far [field] and redeem it with [a field that is] close, [nor a field that is] bad and redeem it for a good [quality field].

Rava said: here, the verse [in the second baraita] is according to its context, and there, the verse [in the first baraita] is according to its context. There, according to the context of the verse, “he found” is the same as “he obtained it in his hand” (Leviticus 25:26). Just as he obtained it in his hand from now [meaning already in the past] so too, he also found from now [meaning already in the past]. Here, according to the context of the verse, “he found” is the same as the forest. Just as the forest something was there from the outset, so too, also [in the case of] “he found” something was there from the outset.