The Mishna “In the case of a priest who eats first fruits before the one who brought the fruits to the Temple recited over those fruits the Torah verses that he is obligated to recite (see Deuteronomy 26:3–10)” teaches that a priest who eats first fruits before the one who brought the fruits to the Temple recited the accompanying Torah verses is liable to receive lashes.
This is not only the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, but also Rabbi
Shimon who learns this from an a fortiori inference. The Gemara provides the
entire baraita.
“What is the statement of Rabbi Shimon? It is as
it is taught in a baraita with regard to food items that may not be
eaten outside the walls of Jerusalem. It is written: “You may not eat within
your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the
firstborn of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows that you vow, nor
your gift offerings, nor the donation of your hand” (Deuteronomy 12:17). The
Sages explain that with regard to the phrase “nor the donation of [terumat]
your hand,” these are first fruits.
“Rabbi Shimon said: What does this phrase come to teach us? If
it is to teach the prohibition to eat the first fruits outside the
wall of Jerusalem, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by
means of an a fortiori inference from the lenient case of
second-tithe produce. If with regard to the lenient case
of second-tithe produce, one who eats them outside the wall is
flogged, then with regard to first fruits, all the more so is it not
clear that he is flogged? Rather, the verse comes to teach only with regard
to a priest who partakes of first fruits before the person who
brought the fruits to the Temple recited the accompanying Torah verses over
them, teaching that he is flogged.
“The baraita continues: “Nor
your gift offerings”; this is a thanks-offering and a peace-offering that
one donates voluntarily. Rabbi Shimon says: What does this phrase come
to teach us? If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a
thanks-offering and a peace-offering outside the wall of Jerusalem,
there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of an a
fortiori inference from the case of second-tithe produce,
for whose consumption outside the wall one is flogged, despite the fact that it
is not an offering. Rather, the verse comes to teach only with regard to one
who partakes of a thanks-offering or of a peace-offering before the sprinkling
of its blood on the altar, before the consumption of its flesh is permitted, that
he is flogged.
The baraita continues: “Or
the firstborn”; this is the firstborn. Rabbi Shimon says: What does this
verse come to teach us? If it is to teach that it is prohibited to
eat a firstborn animal outside the wall of Jerusalem, there is no
need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori
inference from the case of second-tithe produce. If it is
to teach that it is prohibited to eat a firstborn animal before the sprinkling
of the blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori
inference from the case of a thanks-offering and a peace-offering,
which are offerings of lesser sanctity, as even non-priests may partake of
their flesh. Rather, the verse comes to teach only with regard to a
non-priest who partakes of the flesh of a firstborn even after
the sprinkling of its blood, that he is flogged.
“The baraita continues: “Of
your herd or of your flock”; this is a sin-offering and a guilt-offering,
which are offerings of the most sacred order, which may be eaten only within
the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: What does this verse come to
teach us?
.
“If
it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a sin-offering and a
guilt-offering outside the wall, there is no need for a verse, as it may
be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the
case of second-tithe produce. If it is to teach that it is
prohibited to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering before the sprinkling
of the blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori
inference from the case of a thanks-offering and a peace-offering,
which are offerings of lesser sanctity. If it is to teach that it is
prohibited for a non-priest to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering after
the sprinkling of its blood, it may be derived by means of an a
fortiori inference from the case of a firstborn animal.
Rather, the verse comes to teach only with regard to one who partakes
of the flesh of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering even after the sprinkling
of its blood, which is the correct time to partake of it, but he partakes of it
outside the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard or outside the
Temple courtyard, that he is flogged.
The baraita continues: “Your vows”; this is the
burnt-offering, which is an offering of the most sacred order and is
entirely consumed upon the altar, and is brought as a gift offering, not as an
obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: What does this verse come to teach us?
“If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a
burnt-offering outside the wall of Jerusalem, there is no need for a
verse, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from
the case of second-tithe produce. If it is to teach that it is
prohibited to eat a burnt-offering before the sprinkling of the
blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from
the case of a thanks-offering and a peace-offering, which are offerings
of lesser sanctity. If it is to teach that it is prohibited for a
non-priest to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering after the sprinkling
of its blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori
inference from the case of a firstborn animal. If it is to
teach that it is prohibited to eat a burnt-offering outside the curtains
surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard or outside the Temple courtyard there is an
a fortiori inference from a sin-offering and a guilt-offering.
Rather, the verse comes to teach only with regard to one who partakes
of the flesh of a burnt-offering after the sprinkling, even inside
the courtyard, that he is flogged.” (Sefaria.org translation)
Rava is so
impressed with Rabbi Shimon says “With regard to anyone whose mother is
bearing a child who is like Rabbi Shimon, she should bear that
child, and if not, it is preferable that she does not bear him at
all” (Sefaria.org translation) Even though the Gemara shows that Rabbi Shimon’s
a fortiori logic is far from perfect, he appreciates his creativity. Instead of
explaining the verse from beginning to end, he explained the verse starting at
the end and working his way towards the beginning! We find this type of praise
in Pirke Avot where “Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai … says about Rabbi Joshua ben
Hananiah happy is the woman that gave birth to him;” (2:8) In essence both Rava
and Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai were praising the extraordinary wisdom and
knowledge of these two men.
Rashi explains
that Rava’s intention was that every mother giving birth should pray that her
child would be like Rabbi Shimon.
They prayed
that their children will be talmedai
hakhamim, Torah scholars. What do you pray for your children and
grandchildren?
No comments:
Post a Comment