If one declares some object forbidden to himself by a vow, just like a sacrifice, is the prohibition really that strong? For example, if he uses this object after all, does he need to bring an additional sacrifice ("Me'ila"), just as he would have for misusing a sacrifice?
Perhaps we can prove this is so from the previous ruling. There, one was allowed to return a lost object even to someone he vowed not to provide any benefit. However, he could not take the reward for this but had to give it to the Temple treasury. Does this not prove the point? – Actually, this is indeed strong proof.
We find that Rabbi Meir and the Sages argued about this exact point. And since every Sage in the Talmud builds a system of consistent teachings without contradictions, we can rely on them to verify that both points of view are logical and can be valid.
And what did Rabbi Meir and the Sages argue about? – If one prohibits himself from a loaf of bread by a vow and then eats it, he has to bring a Me'ila offering to atone - this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Sages, however, say that since this loaf is not equally prohibited to all, the concept of Me'ila does not apply. And yet, since the previous rule proves that Rabbi Meir is right, the final law follows him.
Art: Studies of bread by Spanish School
No comments:
Post a Comment