Temurah

to say that he should not delete the case of drink-offerings [from the above Baraitha],1 and yet there is no contradiction.2 Here,3 we are dealing with drink-offerings which accompany a sacrifice,4 while there5 we are dealing with drink-offerings which are brought by themselves.6 And if he had found [someone] could he have written the letter? Did not R. Abba the son of R. Hiyya b. Abba report in the name of R. Johanan: Those who write the traditional teachings7 [are punished]8 like those who burn the Torah,9 and he who learns from them [the writings] receives no reward. And R. Judah b. Nahman the Meturgeman10 of Resh Lakish gave the following [as exposition]: The verse says: Write thou these words11 and then says: For after the tenor of these words,11 thus teaching you that matters received as oral traditions you are not permitted to recite from writing and that written things [Biblical passages] you are not permitted to recite from memory.12 And the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: Scripture says, ‘Write thou these words’, implying that ‘these’ words you may write but you may not write traditional laws!13 — The answer was given: Perhaps the case is different in regard to a new interpretation.14 For R. Johanan and Resh Lakish used to peruse the book of Aggadah15 on Sabbaths16 and explained [their attitude] in this manner: [Scripture says:] It is time for the Lord to work, they have made void thy law,17 explaining this as follows: It is better that one letter of the Torah18 should be uprooted than that the whole Torah should be forgotten. Said R. Papa: Now that you say that drink-offerings which are brought by themselves19 are offered even by night, if drink-offerings happen to be at hand by night, we can dedicate them by night20 and offer them [by night]. Said R. Joseph the son of R. Shema'ia to R. Papa: There is a Baraitha which supports [your dictum]: ‘This is the general rule, Whatsoever is offered by day is only dedicated by day, and whatsoever is offered by night is dedicated by night’. Said R. Adda b. Ahaba:21 And the rise of the morning dawn disqualifies drink-offerings like22 the limbs [of the daily evening sacrifice].23 When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadok: [Scripture says:] These things ye shall do unto the Lord in your set feasts:24 this refers to the obligatory sacrifices which are brought on holy days;25 beside your vows and your freewill-offerings24 teach concerning vows and freewill-offerings that they are offered on the Intermediate Days26 of the Festival; for your burnt-offerings:24 now of what kind of burnt-offering does the verse speak? If of a freewill burnt-offering, is it not already written, ‘your freewill-offerings’? And if of a burnt-offering which was vowed, is it not already written, ‘your vows’? [The text]27 therefore can only refer to the burnt-offerings of a woman brought after childbirth and the burnt-offering of a leper.28 And for your meal-offerings:24 now of what kind of meal-offering does the verse speak? If of a freewill meal-offering, is not this already written?29 And if of a meal-offering which was vowed, is not this already written?30 [The text] therefore can only refer to a sinner's meal-offering and a meal-offering of jealousy.31 And for your drink-offerings and for your peace-offerings24 implies an analogy between drink-offerings and peace-offerings [as follows]: Just as peace-offerings are offered by day so drink-offerings [which accompany a sacrifice] are offered by day. ‘And for your peace-offerings’ includes peace-offerings of a Nazirite. 32 Said Abaye to him: And why not say that the text33 includes peace-offerings of the Passover,34 for if the text includes peace-offerings of a Nazirite, they are sacrifices which are the subject of a vow or a freewill dedication,35 and we have learnt: ‘This is the general rule, Whatsoever is the subject of a vow or a freewill dedication, may be offered on a private bamah36 and whatsoever is not the subject of a vow or a freewill dedication must not be offered on a private bamah’.37 And it has been taught: ‘Meal-offerings and offerings in connection with a Nazirite may be offered on a private bamah’.38 This is the teaching of R. Meir. — Delete39 from here40 the case of a Nazirite.41 But is there an authority who holds that a Nazirite is not the subject of a vow or a freewill-offering? Lo, it is written: And it came to pass after forty years that Absalom said to the King, [pray thee let me go and pay my vow which I vowed unto the Lord in Hebron. For thy servant vowed a vow, etc.42 Now does this not refer to the sacrifice?43 — No, it refers to the vow itself.44 ‘The vow itself’ — was it made in Hebron? Was it not made in Geshur?45 Said R. Aha, some say Rabbah son of R. Hanan: Absalom only went in order to bring sheep from Hebron.46 So indeed it stands to reason. For if you say that he went to Hebron to offer up, would he leave Jerusalem and go to offer up in Hebron? — Then what do you say? That he went to bring sheep from Hebron? Then why does it say: ‘Which I vowed unto the Lord in Hebron’? It ought to say ‘from Hebron’! — One can still say that he went to offer in Hebron,47 and as regards your difficulty as to why he left Jerusalem and came to offer in Hebron, why not raise this same difficulty with reference to Gibeon which was a holy place?48 This however is the explanation: Once it has become permissible to offer on the bamahs, he can offer wherever he wishes.49 It says: ‘After forty years’. Forty years from what? — R. Nehorai reported in the name of R. Joshua: Forty years from when [the Israelites] asked for a king. For it has been taught: The year in which the Israelites asked for a king was the tenth year of Samuel's leadership. drink-offerings may be offered by night. sacrifice itself. such a case, drink-offerings may be offered for ten days, including the nights. (Rashi). Another explanation of Rashi: These writings are not saved on Sabbath in case of fire. Furthermore the restriction only applies when we are desirous of acting on behalf of others. (Rashi): Any new interpretation which reconciles conflicting Baraithas. Sh. Mek. adds: Another version: The answer was given. The Rabbis rely on what they learn, but since there is forgetfulness, they reduce to writing and when the occasion arises they look into the book. for the prohibition of reducing to writing oral tradition has so far not been satisfactorily explained. For a full discussion of the problem, as well as an attempt to explain the term halachahs mentioned in this connection, v. Kaplan, J. The Redaction of the Talmud, pp. 261ff. Referring to the Baraitha above which says the limbs and joints go on being consumed all night, R. Adda says: The approach of the time for the bringing of the daily morning sacrifice disqualifies the limbs if they are not consumed by then. But only the actual offering up of the morning sacrifice disqualifies, as then it is already day, but not the mere preparations on the altar for the morning sacrifice. freewill peace-offerings, since the text has already said ‘your vows’. And if the text is for the purposes of analogy, let Scripture say ‘and for peace-offerings’. Why ‘and for your peace-offerings?’ (Rashi). brought with it; and Abaye would learn that if these were set aside for that purpose on the fourteenth of Nisan but were not offered up, they could be offered on the Intermediate Days. For, according to Abaye, there is no need for Scripture to include the case of peace-offerings of a Nazirite, as this can be inferred from the text, ‘for your freewill-offerings and your vows’, for Naziriteship is the subject of a vow and freewill dedication, whereas peace-offerings in connection with the passover are obligatory sacrifices. of a Nazirite on a private bamah. which a Nazirite has to bring later on, these being obligatory, for the vow of a Nazirite at the outset only has reference to wine and the sacrifices come later automatically. shaved himself and brought the appropriate sacrifice. Since he went to offer his sacrifice in Hebron where there were private bamahs, we can infer that a Nazirite is the subject of vows and freewill-offerings. which I made at Hebron. But the text does not mean that Absalom actually fulfilled his vows in Hebron. The text therefore does not mean that the vow was made in Hebron, only that he obtained the sheep at Hebron. Gaon). The Rabbis who differ from R. Meir, however, hold that a Nazirite is not the subject of vows and therefore Absalom went to Hebron for the sheep but the actual offering was in Gibeon, on a large bamah (Tosaf). R. Dimi therefore who includes peace-offerings in connection with a Nazirite, agrees with the Rabbis who hold that a Nazirite is not the subject of vows and the Baraitha quoted above is the opinion of R. Meir.