sanctity

HALAKHAH: “An Anointed Priest who sinned,” etc. Halakhah 2:“An Anointed Priest who was removed from his anointed status,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, if a High Priest sinned, one whips him but does not remove him from his elevated status. Rebbi Mana said, it is written: For the crown of his God’s ointment is on him, I am the Eternal; if one could compare it, just as I am in My Greatness, so Aaron is in his greatness. Rebbi Abun said, it is written: Holy shall he be for you; if one could compare it, I am in My Sanctity, so Aaron is in his sanctity. Rebbi Ḥanina the scribe, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if an Anointed Priest sinned, one whips him in a court of three [judges]. If you would say in a court of 23, his elevation would be his degradation. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if a patriarch sinned, one whips him in a court of three [judges]. Does one return him? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, better if one did return him, he would kill them. Rebbi Jehudah the Prince heard this and became angry. He sent Goths to catch Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He fled to Magdala, some say to Kefar Ḥiţţim. Rebbi Joḥanan went to the assembly hall; Rebbi Jehudah the Prince also went to the assembly hall. He said to him, why is the master not telling us words of instruction? He started clapping with one hand. He asked, does one clap with one? He answered him, no, but without ben Laqish there is nothing. He said, no. He told him, I shall free him. He said to him, in Magdala. He told him, I and you will go out to meet him. Rebbi Joḥanan sent to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, prepare for yourself some words of instruction since the Patriarch will go out to meet you. He went out to meet them and said, your example is similar to that of your Creator. For when the Merciful went to liberate Israel from Egypt, He sent neither messenger nor angel but He went Himself, as is written: I shall pass through the Land of Egypt in that night, not only He but all His Court. It is not written in this context “when Power went” but when Powers went. They asked him, why did you say these things? He told them, what are you thinking? That for fear of you I would refrain from the teachings of the Merciful? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, No my sons, because the reputation is not good, etc., you remove the Eternal’s people, one removes him.

If one was incapacitated and the other officiated. The first has all the sanctity of the High Priesthood on him; the second one is qualified neither as High Priest nor as common priest. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he transgressed and officiated, his officiating is (invalid) [valid]. Whose officiating? Let us hear from the following: It happened to Ben Illem from Sepphoris that the High Priest experienced an emission of semen on the Day of Atonement; Ben Illem entered and officiated in his stead. He went out and asked the king: “The bull and the ram which are brought today, from whose property are they offered? From his or from the High Priest’s?” The king understood what he was asking and answered him, “is it not enough for you that you served once before Him Who spoke and the world was created?” Ben Illem understood that he was removed from the High Priesthood.

They asked, "What shall we do? Shall we depose [R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah] ? We have the tradition, 'We may raise to a higher degree of sanctity but not degrade to a lower degree! ' If we ask one of them to give the discourse on one Sabbath and the other on the next Sabbath, it will lead to jealousy. Let, then, Rabban Gamaliel give the discourse three Sabbaths [in the month] and R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah one Sabbath," That is what the teacher meant who asked, "Whose Sabbath was it? It was R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah's" ] And the disciple was R. Simeon b. Johai.

Our Rabbis have taught : The following is the order of the Grace after meals : The first benediction is "Who feedest" ; the second, the benediction of "the land"; the third, "Who...rebuildest Jerusalem" ; the fourth, "Who art kind and dealest kindly." On the Sabbath, one begins and ends with consolation and refers to the sanctity of the day in the middle. R. Eliezer says: If he wishes to include [the reference to the Sabbath] in the "consolation," he may do so ; in the benediction of "the land," he may do so ; in the benediction instituted by the Sages in Jabneh, he may do so. The Sages, however, say : He should only include it in the "consolation."

and [the purchaser] eats the produce [as though it has] the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.

The reason then for the [permission to purchase a] lulav is that it is [the product of] the sixth year which entered the seventh, but if it were of the Sabbatical Year it would have been sacred? But why? ... Is it not just wood, and wood does not possess the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, as it has been taught: ... Leaves of reeds and leaves of the vine which have been heaped up to store them upon a field: if they were gathered for [animal] food, they possess the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, but if they were gathered for firewood, they do have not the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.

The reason then for the [permission to purchase a] lulav is that it is [the product of] the sixth year which entered the seventh, but if it were of the Sabbatical Year it would have been sacred? But why? ... Is it not just wood, and wood does not possess the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, as it has been taught: ... Leaves of reeds and leaves of the vine which have been heaped up to store them upon a field: if they were gathered for [animal] food, they possess the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, but if they were gathered for firewood, they do have not the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.

The reason then for the [permission to purchase a] lulav is that it is [the product of] the sixth year which entered the seventh, but if it were of the Sabbatical Year it would have been sacred? But why? ... Is it not just wood, and wood does not possess the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, as it has been taught: ... Leaves of reeds and leaves of the vine which have been heaped up to store them upon a field: if they were gathered for [animal] food, they possess the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, but if they were gathered for firewood, they do have not the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.

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.

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.

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.

It has been taught in agreement with R. Elazar, and it has also been taught in agreement with R. Yohanan. It has been taught in agreement with R. Elazar: [In the case of produce of] the Sabbatical Year the money [for which it is exchanged] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce itself], for it is said, "For it is a Jubilee, it shall be holy to you" just as with holy objects the money [for which it is redeemed assumes] the sanctity [of the holy object], and becomes forbidden, so with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce] and becomes forbidden.

It has been taught in agreement with R. Elazar, and it has also been taught in agreement with R. Yohanan. It has been taught in agreement with R. Elazar: [In the case of produce of] the Sabbatical Year the money [for which it is exchanged] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce itself], for it is said, "For it is a Jubilee, it shall be holy to you" just as with holy objects the money [for which it is redeemed assumes] the sanctity [of the holy object], and becomes forbidden, so with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce] and becomes forbidden.

It has been taught in agreement with R. Elazar, and it has also been taught in agreement with R. Yohanan. It has been taught in agreement with R. Elazar: [In the case of produce of] the Sabbatical Year the money [for which it is exchanged] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce itself], for it is said, "For it is a Jubilee, it shall be holy to you" just as with holy objects the money [for which it is redeemed assumes] the sanctity [of the holy object], and becomes forbidden, so with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce] and becomes forbidden.

[But] in case [you would say] that just as, with holy objects, the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes its sanctity and [the holy object itself] becomes desacralized, so also with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the money for which it is redeemed assumes its sanctity and the [produce itself] becomes desacralized, Scripture explicitly says, "It shall be"—it remains in its original [holy] state.

[But] in case [you would say] that just as, with holy objects, the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes its sanctity and [the holy object itself] becomes desacralized, so also with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the money for which it is redeemed assumes its sanctity and the [produce itself] becomes desacralized, Scripture explicitly says, "It shall be"—it remains in its original [holy] state.

How so? If with the produce of the Sabbatical Year he purchased meat, both the meat and the produce must be removed during the Sabbatical Year. If, however, he purchased with the meat fish, the meat loses [the sanctity of the produce of the Sabbatical Year], and the fish assumes it. If he purchased with the fish wine, the fish loses [its sanctity], and the wine assumes it. If he purchased with the wine oil, the wine loses [its sanctity] and the oil assumes it.

How so? If with the produce of the Sabbatical Year he purchased meat, both the meat and the produce must be removed during the Sabbatical Year. If, however, he purchased with the meat fish, the meat loses [the sanctity of the produce of the Sabbatical Year], and the fish assumes it. If he purchased with the fish wine, the fish loses [its sanctity], and the wine assumes it. If he purchased with the wine oil, the wine loses [its sanctity] and the oil assumes it.

How so? If with the produce of the Sabbatical Year he purchased meat, both the meat and the produce must be removed during the Sabbatical Year. If, however, he purchased with the meat fish, the meat loses [the sanctity of the produce of the Sabbatical Year], and the fish assumes it. If he purchased with the fish wine, the fish loses [its sanctity], and the wine assumes it. If he purchased with the wine oil, the wine loses [its sanctity] and the oil assumes it.

How so? The last object [purchased] assumes [the sanctity] of the Sabbatical Year, but the produce itself always remains prohibited. Now since the term "purchased" is repeatedly used, it is evident that only by way of sale [does it become redeemed], but not by way of exchange.

It has been taught: R. Elazar b. Zadok said: There was a small empty space between the ascent and the altar, on the west side of the ascent, and once in seventy years the young of the priesthood used to descend there and gather up from there the congealed wine which looked like round cakes of pressed figs, and they would come and burn it in a state of sanctity as it is said, “In the holy place you shall pour out a drink-offering of strong drink to the Lord” (Numbers 28:7)

just as its libation was done in sanctity, so too was its burning be done in sanctity. But what does [this midrash] mean? Ravina said: An analogy is made between two appearances of the word holy.” It is written here, ‘In the holy place your shall pour out a drink-offering of strong drink to the Lord’, and it is written elsewhere, “Then you shall burn the remainder with fire, it shall not be eaten, because it is holy” (Exodus 29:34).

just as its libation was done in sanctity, so too was its burning be done in sanctity. But what does [this midrash] mean? Ravina said: An analogy is made between two appearances of the word holy.” It is written here, ‘In the holy place your shall pour out a drink-offering of strong drink to the Lord’, and it is written elsewhere, “Then you shall burn the remainder with fire, it shall not be eaten, because it is holy” (Exodus 29:34).

and cast it into the Deep so that it should subside?” No one said a word. David said, “Whoever knows the answer and does not speak, may he be suffocated”. Ahitophel adduced an a fortiori argument to himself: “If, for the purpose of establishing harmony between man and wife, the Torah said, Let My name that was written in sanctity be blotted out by the water,how much more so may it be done in order to establish peace in the world!” He [Ahitophel] said to him, “It is permitted!”

There is no difference between Shiloh and Jerusalem except that in Shiloh sacrifices of lesser sanctity and second tithe could be eaten anywhere within sight [of the town], whereas in Jerusalem [they had to be eaten] within the walls.

And R. Joshua said: I have heard that sacrifices may be brought even though there is no Temple; that the most holy foods may be eaten, even though there are no curtains; and that foods of lesser sanctity and second tithe may be eaten even though there is no wall, because the first holiness was conferred on Jerusalem both for the time being and for all time. We infer from this that R. Eliezer holds that it was not [at first] sanctified for all time.

Rather it follows the following Tannaim: R. Ishmael son of R. Yose said: Why did the Sages list these? Because when the exiles returned they found these cities [still walled] and sanctified them; the others were annulled when the land’s [sanctity] was annulled. Thus he holds that the first holiness sanctified it for its time but not for the future.

GEMARA. Townspeople who sold the town square. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: This is the view of R. Menahem b. Yose the anonymous author, but the sages that there is no sanctity in the town square.

[With regard to a synagogue which has been made] a gift, R. Aha and Ravina disagree, one forbids [it to be used for secular purposes] and one permits. The one who forbade—how is its sanctity removed? While the one who permitted if the giver [the giver] did not derive some benefit from the act he would not give it, so that in the end the gift is equivalent to a sale.

But if they sell a Torah they may not buy [other biblical] scrolls. They asked: Is it allowed to sell an old Sefer Torah to buy a new one? Since he is not raising [the level of sanctity] it is forbidden, or shall we say that since there is no higher level to go to, it is okay?

They may not sell [something] belonging to a community because this lowers its sanctity, the words of Rabbi Meir. They said to him: if so, it should not be allowed to sell from a larger town to a smaller one.

Joseph said: What has he told us? We have already learned it: R. Judah says: it may be sold for use as a courtyard, and the purchaser may do what he likes in it; and even the rabbis did not forbid except for in the synagogue itself, since its sanctity is permanent, but for the four adjoining cubits, the sanctity of which is not permanent, they did not make such a rule.

Joseph said: What has he told us? We have already learned it: R. Judah says: it may be sold for use as a courtyard, and the purchaser may do what he likes in it; and even the rabbis did not forbid except for in the synagogue itself, since its sanctity is permanent, but for the four adjoining cubits, the sanctity of which is not permanent, they did not make such a rule.

Zera said in the name of R. Matanah. The boards and the platforms do not have any sanctity in them.

There are those that teach this on the following (Rava's statement, instead of being related to inadvertent killing will now be compared to laws of shemitah). "From the reaping and the plowing you shall rest" (Exodus 34:21). Rabbi Akiva says the text did not need to speak of reaping and plowing of the seventh year as it already said, "your field, do not plant and your vineyard do not prune" (Leviticus 25:4). Rather, it is teaching (the first verse) that even the plowing of the year before shemitah (is forbidden as its produce) will go into the 7th year and the (sanctity of shemitah is applied) for the reaping of the 7th year that will go out (continue to grow) after the 7th year.

A baraisa was taught in accordance with [the view of] Reish Lakash, "B'chol kodesh lo sigah" is a scriptural warning for eating [sacrificial foods while one is impure]. You say that it is a warning for eating? Or maybe it's only a warning for touching? The Torah therefore says, "In all sanctity he shall not touch and into the Temple etc." The Torah juxtaposes sacrificial foods with the Temple. Just as the Temple is a thing that involve the loss of life [one who enters while impure is subject to kares], so too the whole [verse] most involve the loss of life. And does touching [sacrificial foods, which is punishable with malkus] involve any loss of life? Rather you must say that the "b'chol kodesh lo sigah" refers to eating [sacrificial foods].

MISHNA: One who eats bikorim [first fruits] before the verses are recited; [or eats] kadshai kadshim [offerings of greater sanctity] outside the curtain [of the temple courtyard; or one who eats] kadshai kalim [offerings of lesser sanctity] or maiser sheni outside the wall [of Jerusalem]; or one who breaks the bone of a pure Pesach offering. All of these incur forty lashes. But one who leaves over from [even a tahor i.e. a pure] offering, or one who breaks a bone of a tamai [impure] offering does not incur malkus.

MISHNA: One who eats bikorim [first fruits] before the verses are recited; [or eats] kadshai kadshim [offerings of greater sanctity] outside the curtain [of the temple courtyard; or one who eats] kadshai kalim [offerings of lesser sanctity] or maiser sheni outside the wall [of Jerusalem]; or one who breaks the bone of a pure Pesach offering. All of these incur forty lashes. But one who leaves over from [even a tahor i.e. a pure] offering, or one who breaks a bone of a tamai [impure] offering does not incur malkus.

And what is the stringency of Chatos and Asham over Bechor? That [Chatos and Asham] are of high sanctity. But, to the contrary, Bechor is more stringent, as it is sanctified from birth.

And what does [Rebbi Yishmael] hold? If he holds that the original sanctity of the Temple was for its time and also all future time, then even a Bechor should be able to be brought nowadays. And if he holds that the original sanctity of the Temple was for its time but did not extend to future time, then he also should inquire about a Bechor!

And what does [Rebbi Yishmael] hold? If he holds that the original sanctity of the Temple was for its time and also all future time, then even a Bechor should be able to be brought nowadays. And if he holds that the original sanctity of the Temple was for its time but did not extend to future time, then he also should inquire about a Bechor!

Ravina says Actually he holds that the original sanctity of the Temple was for its time but not also all future time, but here we are dealing with a Bechor that the blood was sprinkled before the destruction of the Temple, and then the Temple was destroyed with the meat still extant. And we make a hekesh [juxtapose] from the meat to the blood. Just as the blood needs the alter, so does the meat need the alter. And we also make a hekesh from Maaser to Bechor.