With daf TB Sanhedrin 49 we finish the fifth chapter of our massekhet and begin the sixth chapter. The fifth chapter ends with the lot of aggadita about King David and Yoav, King David’s general. Because Yoav murdered Amasa, Avner, King Saul’s general, and sided with Adoniya in his rebellion against King David, King David commanded his son Solomon to put him to death. Our chapter ends with Yoav’s court case. I encourage you not only to study the Gemara, but also read the original stories in the book of II Samuel.
The sixth
chapter opens up with the disagreement between the sages and Rabbi Shimon concerning the order of court
executions. They both agree that the order start with the most severe form of
execution and then go down in decreasing order. “MISHNA: Four types
of the death penalty were given over to the court,
with which those who committed certain transgressions are executed. They are,
in descending order of severity: Stoning, burning, killing by
decapitation, and strangulation. Rabbi Shimon says: They are, in
descending order of severity: Burning, stoning, strangulation, and killing. ”
(Sefaria.org translation) As you can see Rabbi Shimon flips the first two
method’s order and the last two’s order.
Rav Huna argues
when there is no disagreement in a Mishna, the order enumerated therein is not
significant except in the case of determining whether the stain on a piece of
woman’s clothing is blood or not. The Gemara challenges Rav Huna with the order
of the Yom Kippur service. “With regard to all actions performed in the
context of the service of Yom Kippur, which are stated in the Mishna, as
in the Torah, in order, the halakha is: If the High Priest
performed one action before another, i.e., if he diverged from
the order that is written, it is as though he has done nothing.”
(Sefaria.org translation) Rav Huna dismisses this proof because he “does not
include this mishna because that is merely a stringency. Although a change
in the order invalidates the Yom Kippur service, this is not due to the
importance of some rites relative to others, but because this order was
established by the Torah.” (Sefaria.org translation)
The Gemara then brings the order of the daily sacrifice, the tamid, to disprove Rav Huna. Rav Huna dismisses this Mishna because: “that requirement is merely for the mitzva. In other words, it is preferable that the offering be sacrificed in that order, but it is not disqualified if one deviates from that order.” (Sefaria.org translation)
The Gemara now presents the case of the order of ḥalitza, the ceremony when the brother doesn’t want to marry
his deceased brother’s wife who has no children from her husband to support Rav
Huna’s position. “It is a mitzva to perform ḥalitza like this,
i.e., this is the proper order, but if one switched the order we
have no problem with it; the ḥalitza is still valid, as the
order of the ritual is not essential. This is also taught in a baraita:
Whether one performed the removal of the shoe before
the spitting, or the spitting before the removal of the shoe, what
she did is done, i.e., the ḥalitza is valid.” (Sefaria.org
translation)
Finally the
order of special eight pieces of clothing for the Kohen Gadol, the High Priest, supports Rav Huna’s contention. “An
ordinary priest performs the Temple service in a tunic, in trousers, in a
mitre, and in a belt. The High Priest adds another four
garments beyond those worn by the ordinary priest: A breastplate, and
an ephod, and a robe, and a frontplate. The order listed in this mishna
indicates that the tunic was put on first. “And it is taught in a baraita:
From where is it derived that nothing precedes the donning of the
trousers when the priest dresses? As it is stated: “He shall wear a
sacred tunic of linen; and trousers of linen shall be on his flesh”
(Leviticus 16:4). This indicates that the trousers come first, as they are worn
directly on the flesh, proving that the list in the mishna is not in accordance
with the order in which the priests” (Sefaria.org translation)
No comments:
Post a Comment