Talmud. Various Authors
Читать онлайн книгу.
Footnotes
a1 MISHNA a. Warnings were heralded from Jerusalem concerning Shekalim on and after the first of Adar, in order to prepare for the first of Nissan, before which day the final settlement of Shekalim had to be made. This was inferred by the Palestinian Talmud from the following passage [Exodus xl. 17]: "And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first of the month, that the tabernacle was reared up." This was commented upon by a Boraitha, which stated, that on the day on which the tabernacle was reared up, the entire sum of the Shekalim collected was ready for disbursement.
a2 Warnings were also heralded concerning Kelayim, because that month was the time when ploughing and sowing commenced in Palestine.
a3 The Megillah (Book of Esther) was read on the fifteenth day of this month only in such cities as were fortified since the time of Joshua the son of Nun; but in such as were fortified after his day, and in the open cities, it was read on the fourteenth of the month. No mention is made in the Mishna concerning the reading on the fourteenth, because, the majority of the cities being open, or fortified since the time of Joshua ben Nun, it was generally known, and there was no fear of it being forgotten. In the few fortified cities, however, it was necessary to remind the inhabitants that the day on which they were to read the Megillah was the fifteenth. The Palestinian Talmud (Chapter I., Halakha 2) states, that we are taught by this Mishna that all commandments which are to be fulfilled on a leap year in the second Adar should not be fulfilled in the first Adar; but we cannot see how that can be inferred from this Mishna, although some commentators have tried to explain it.
a4 The rainy season ended by the first of Adar, and in consequence of the heavy rains the country roads and market-places were in bad condition. In the month of Nissan, travel towards Jerusalem was very heavy; hence the warning to improve the roads, etc., was heralded, The public plunge-baths were also injured by the rains and had to be repaired, for the sake of the public, to whom the law prescribes the taking of a legal bath on or before the holidays.
a5 The Palestinian Talmud states, that at that time the courts of law (Beth-din) would meet in session for the trial of civil suits, criminal cases, and crimes involving the punishment of stripes; for the redemption of such as had devoted all their possessions in honor of the Lord, and such as had given the estimated value of their person, etc.; also for the performance of the rite of the bitter water (see Numbers v. 12-31), and for the performance of the rite of breaking the calf's neck (see Dent. xxi.), and for the rite of the red heifer (see Numbers xix.), and for the ceremony of piercing a serf's ear (see Exodus xxi.). For all this, and any other matters that came up before them, the courts of law assembled in that month.
a6 Such graves as had been injured during the rainy season, and were not marked, had to be restored and marked, in order that a man be saved the annoyance of becoming unclean by stepping on a grave. The Palestinian Talmud infers this from the passage [Leviticus xiii. 46]: "Unclean, unclean, shall he call out," and interprets it to signify that the uncleanness itself should call out "unclean" and keep men away from its vicinity. For this reason it was heralded, that the graves were to be marked in order to be a warning to passers-by that such places were unclean.
a7 On account of the severity of the law concerning Kelayim and the frequency with which that law was infracted, it was deemed insufficient merely to herald the prohibition, and messengers were sent out to see the law enforced (Maimonides).
b1 MISHNA b. R. Jehudah's dictum does not intend to dispute the foregoing, but merely supplements it with the statement that the messengers sent out were for the purpose of punishing the infractors of the law of Kelayim. The Palestinian Talmud adduces the right of the Beth-din to confiscate property from the passage [Ezra x. 8]: "And that whosoever should not come within three days, etc., all his substance should be devoted." Whence it may be seen, that a Beth-din has such power.
c1 MISHNA c. It was the custom for money-changers in those days to carry their tables with them, and hence they were called "the men of the tables." The Mishna relates, that on the fifteenth of the month the money-changers were ordered to go out into the rural districts with their tables, in order to provide the people with the necessary half-shekels; for the tax had to be paid in half-shekels only.
c2 On the twenty-fifth, when it was high time for payment and the people commenced flocking into the city of Jerusalem, the moneychangers returned and sat in the court of the Temple.
c3 The taking of pledges commenced immediately upon the departure of the money-changers from the rural districts, because, if a man had not paid his half-shekel while the money-changers were still within his reach, it was obvious that he either would not or could not pay it, and in consequence a pledge was taken.
c4 According to law, the priests were also in duty bound to pay the half-shekels, the collection of which was mainly intended for the purchase of communal sacrifices, and the priests were naturally included in the community. They, however, found a defect in the law, and held themselves exempt. In consequence of their being in authority during the existence of the second Temple, they were not forced to pay or give pledges, for the sake of harmony.
d1 MISHNA d. The difference of opinion between Ben Buchri (who was a priest himself) and R. Johan ben Zakai is, as can be plainly seen, that Ben Buchri holds, that according to law the priests are not in duty bound to pay the half-shekel; but if they do it, they may nevertheless partake of their Omer, two loaves, and showbread, while R. Johan ben Zakai says, that they are in duty bound to pay the half-shekel.
d2 The priests claim, that if they were to pay the half-shekel with which the Omer, etc., is bought, they would naturally have a share in it, and they would eat their share, which, as a priest's offering, must not be eaten by any one. This is, however, an unjust claim; for the majority is considered, and the priests were by far in the minority. As the priests, however, were in charge of the affairs of state, they interpreted the law to suit themselves, and for the sake of peace they were not disturbed.
e1 MISHNA e. This clause of the Mishna refers, according to the Palestinian Talmud and Maimonides, to Samaritans only and not to heathens, while the sin and guilt offerings were accepted from Samaritans but not from heathens, because the latter had not the same laws as the Israelites as regards sin-offerings. The Samaritans, however, claiming to be Israelites, were allowed to bring their sin and guilt offerings. The reason, however, that bird-offerings were not accepted from the Samaritans was because, in the first place, an offering for a person afflicted with venereal disease had to be brought in the form of a sheep; but if the person could not afford a sheep, birds answered the purpose. The Samaritans, however, were not considered trustworthy, and it was feared that they might bring a wrong offering (i.e., an offering of less value than they could afford).
e2 These were accepted from heathens also, because such offerings were for forgiveness of sins in general, and in that respect all men are equal.