Zvachim Daf 16 - Sacrifices - wrong Onan temples
Sacrifices Page P - wrong Onan temples
The Gemara, in search of work Onan disqualify source temple, Debbie brings the words of Rabbi Ishmael. According to this source, we learn Bahcall improper material - what a defect is allowed to eat and work is unacceptable, Onan, forbidden to eat, let alone his work unacceptable.
Indeed, the Gemara does not bother to detail how do we know that not eating holy Onan. Rashi (P EA, DH does not eat) indicates that the source is, I did not eat at the University. Rambam also writes (coming Temple, B, M);
"And where the work of the wrongful masturbate, stick it if I can cripple if he worked desecrated temples, shrines Onan said he should not have not eaten Barney Dean is desecrate it."
Indeed, Maimonides writes the following law:
"Yet Priest working Onan said temples should not eat the sin of the day ate better in the eyes of the Lord"
Difficult, why Maimonides consumed a different source to ban the eating of the priest as he masturbated. And not at last, we did not find him but a source explicitly allowed to work, and what was Ahhu"a allowed to ban eating.
To understand this, look at little more than the various studies to bring the Gemara. There are three studies, which Onan learn the wrong ways - or from the training required to serve a special Onan, or material of Bahcall Bahcall material defect or settled. The fourth source (third order sources are offered in the Gemara), learning from the act of Aaron the priest, is different. This is not a source of very improper, only learning of its existence.
But apparently have to ask - where Aaron knew that his sons are forbidden to work they masturbate, and if their work disqualified? Is this study based on the source of law has to say is gone to Moses at Sinai?
I believe that this study a similar way regarding how we learn the laws of many mourning. For example, the Gemara a little time (hand EA) studies the ban cut mourning, and billing the tear, was said to Aaron and his sons after the death of Nadab - "heads to the riot in clothes not Atprmo" (Vayikra, f). What we tell them not to do So, this means that the rest of the mourners to do so.
Through this study is closely related to our perception the laws of mourning. Laws of mourning are intended to give binding religious framework, human mourning customs already existing. Therefore, generally we do not find religious Jewish law renews charges for mourning, but confirms existing practices. (This claim is related to the perception that the existence of mourning not only the existence of actual laws, but in essence is the existence of the heart. See the lessons in memory of Daddy Long Mary, Part II, pages Reg - St new edition)
Thus, to explain the puzzle is that I wonder at the hospital as follows: law allows Priest to work when he masturbated, teaches us that do not belong to him wrong to masturbate. As Cohen impure public is allowed to work in a situation where victims of contamination were allowed, so the priest is allowed to work When he masturbated. the holy law, not to any limitation. Therefore, the verse 'I did not eat at the University, presented within the rest of the laws of leadership worthy of the tithe, let alone temples, does not apply to the High Priest.
Therefore, Maimonides study consumed Aaron. Learning is not learning the laws of holy, but learning the ways delicacy. Endowments not forbidden to be eaten by the priest when he masturbated, but to masturbate, and it is the high priest, must not eat holy.
Rabbi Baruch Weintraub