Retroactively rolling back from here to hereafter
Good week Rabbi,
Regarding the verse in Leviticus, chapter 7, verse 18
And if the one who eats the meat of the sacrifice of peace offerings eats it on the third day, the one who offers it will not accept it. It will not be considered unclean, and the person who eats it will bear his iniquity.
There is a disagreement in the understanding of this verse between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva in Tractate Zevachim, page 29, page 1.
TAR: And if the eater eats the meat of a whole-blood sacrifice – Rabbi Eliezer said: Incline your ear to hear, in the sense of eating his sacrifice on the third day, does the scripture speak, or is it only about eating his sacrifice on the third day? Did you say? After it is kosher, he will return and be disqualified? Rabbi Akiva said to him: They find a zebub and a zebub and a sevda one day for the day that they are considered pure, and since they saw the opposite, you too should not be surprised at this, that despite it being kosher, he will return and be disqualified. He said to him: Does he say that the one who offers – at the time of the sacrifice he is disqualified and is not disqualified on the third day, or does he not say that the one who offers – but that it is the priest who offers? When he says it – he is talking about the sacrifice, and he is not talking about the priest.
I remember that you talked about a concept called “from now on, the one who sacrificed it will not be pleased with it” and I thought that perhaps this could explain Rabbi Akiva’s method. If the verse had said that it would not be pleasing to the one who sacrificed it (past tense), then it would have been necessary to understand from the verse that the pigol applies from now on, the one who sacrificed it will not be pleased with it, retroactively. But now that it is written in the present tense – the one who sacrificed it will not be pleasing to him, it should be understood from the verse that the pigol applies from the time of the sacrifice, the one who sacrificed it will be pleased with it. This way, too, one can avoid distorting the plain meaning of the verse. What do you think?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just to clarify, I meant that it was Haw Amina that the pigol applies from now on retroactively (from the third day) and the verse comes to tell us that it actually applies retroactively from the time of the sacrifice, and not from the third day.
I haven't looked into it, but it seems that the conclusion is that from now on, retroactively: after being certified, he is disqualified again.
I also based myself on Rashi's interpretation of this verse:
And if the eater eats and is not prepared to eat it on the third day, the text speaks. It is possible that if he eats from it on the third day, it is invalidated retroactively, the Talmud says that the one who sacrifices it will not consider it, at the time of the sacrifice it is invalidated, and it is not invalidated on the third day. And his interpretation at the time of his sacrifice does not arise in thought, and if he thought of a pagan, it would be:
This means that Rashi has a saying that the invalid is on the third day retroactively, and since this does not agree with the word "the one who sacrifices", from which it is understood that at the time of the sacrifice it is invalidated, then it should be interpreted as meaning that the thought of eating on the third day is at the moment of the sacrifice. But it was possible to propose another interpretation, that there are two types of "retroactively", from here on out, and in principle. In the Havvah Amina, they thought that this was the first type of from here on (from the third day onwards), and in the Tel Aviv one can reach the conclusion that this was the second type, of Maikra (from the time of the sacrifice onwards retroactively).
Very true. This is indeed the halakha regarding figul, that it is immediately rejected and should not occur except in its actual time. But as I understood it in the Gemara, that is not what they wrote. Maybe I misunderstood it (as I said, I did not study it enough).
As far as I remember, the Neske in his three articles on the Ma’in 1937-8 brought figul as an example of combining plain and preached with a detailed explanation of this sermon.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
