The Torah said, “Whatever touches the Altar shall be sanctified.” This means that if some sacrificial parts were put on the Altar, they may not be taken down, even if they should not be put there in the first place. Basically this applies when the sacrifice was valid when it entered the Courtyard, and the disqualification occurred later, as part of the service.
Earlier we learned that if one slaughtered an offering, such as a burned offering, which must be slaughtered to the North of the Altar, in the South, he invalidated it, and that misappropriation still applies in this case. A related questions was asked: if they put limbs of this invalid offering on the Altar, must they keep them there? If we say that an offering slaughtered at night has to be kept on the Altar, then perhaps one slaughtered in the South of the Courtyard is the same way, and it too has to stay on the Altar. Or perhaps on offering slaughtered in the South is worse, and it is as if choked, not slaughtered at all? Rav Yosef and Rabbah argued this matter out, and Rav Yosef found an incontrovertible proof that once it went up on the Altar, it does not go down.
Art: J. Duvall - Sheep And Lambs On A Hillside
4 comments:
Mark, can you lead me to info on this quote I saw on facebook?
"When a scholar goes to seek out a bride he should take along an ignoramus as an expert."
Thank you,
Leeba
Leeba,
first of all, I apologize for finding your comment and publishing it only today. I publish the daily Talmud summaries in a few places, and this might have a better visibility and lead to more discussion.
I also have to admit that both the source and the wisdom of this statement elude me. Just as you probably did, I Googled it, and it always comes up as "source - Talmud" without a reference. It would be interesting to find the source, if there is one. What do you think is the meaning of it?
Sincerely,
Mark
Thank you for your reply, Mark.
As for the quote, it was a bit obscure so I also googled it and did not find any source other than, "The Talmud."
Perhaps the Ignoramus would look at the kalla from a simple angle and not with any intention. He might see her for who and what she is. He might observe the qualities that a true woman of valour possesses, as we hear sung each Shabbat (Mishlei/Proverbs31:10-31)
What do YOU think?
Leeba
Leeba,
I think a few things.
First of all, I changed the settings on the blog, so that the comments should be published right away, and not be moderated. I apologize for this setting: it must be annoying to wait for your post to appear.
Secondly, I tried to search for "Ignoramus" on my blog, and I came up with three entries, see here, all of which were striking, unconventional, and new.
It's not that I doubt the authenticity of this statement. It might well be found in the Talmud, perhaps phrased a little differently. However, it lacks that we are looking for in the Torah: it should be new. If it's not, why do I need? I could have said it myself.
And then, according to the Zohar, it would be forbidden for a Sage to travel with an Ignoramus altogether. According to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (and I heard this in a lecture), anyone who is not studying Torah all day is potentially suspect to be ready to kill his fellow in the right circumstances. While there is nothing wrong in dying, a Sage has a mitzvah not to put himself in danger intentionally.
True, today we may not have such people and such rules, but in the time of Talmud - they would not give a wrong a advice.
Post a Comment