Sacrifices Page C – “to profane – we meet with a kind of general rate, it gave great sacrifices for its own sake laws, especially referred to the parallels between Dean and Dean victims name sake Gittin.
Rava introduced two Ahiloakim between areas:
1. Just victims of the oil, and not just a woman divorce sustainable.
2. Renewed the sin of many small to kosher, and get to Goya wrong.
Great hung the first second division. In his opinion, the victim designation is not considered small for general purpose, as Goya designation divorce is not considered for designation at all. In any case, we return to the court seems – and just the victim of kosher and just get wrong.
His claim that the purpose for everyday (not appointed) designation is not important at all, equal justice great clay oven impurity barrier. As the partition that is not useful to save the oven impurity, since that is not considered a tool at all, so the designation is not important small sacrifice, since they are not holy at all. ‘Made small talk with the holy partition in an oven, which partition in the oven has not dissuaded at all, even small talk is not disallowed in most holy to him at all. Although the Talmud made it on the next page – “mummy to mention: our fallen holy holy, not to mention everyday!”
And therefore had to explain the otherwise great words great Msheviaarm:
“But the reason Rav Rabbi Elazar, who said Rabbi Elazar: May the reason Rav? Not profane the holy things of the children of Israel who raise her, our fallen holy holy, holy and profane our fallen ‘ Add it difficult on the course of the Talmud:
“Some wonder Edad cell Asiakana Aipacha of Sabra Dadrebah for they are holy and appointed that destroys small Dlau it but not destroying Bar Mina”
Add indicate that loosening the question on the words of a great, because at the beginning of light and matter is basically the opposite assumption of a great premise. Great to know, Philosophy is not important to everyday thought and temples, just a victim back to trial. Difficult, however, assumes that as more distant thought the victim’s original purpose, that is Atpsul more!
It seems that the dispute between the Raba and Maksne, is actually fundamental in understanding the controversial law for its own sake. Yesterday we brought the recent controversy, is pure law is intended to set the victims of the victim and determine the nature (and “Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein), or an intention of the priest’s work (light beam).
Now, if we say that the essence of law for which it was giving the victim and a fence there, it can be argued that small there is not even there, in fact, the victim can not be a new name. As thus, it is a sacrifice that can not be there at work, and clogged the name given to him during the dedication. This is the opinion of Rava.
But to say that Dean is the intention of her name among them the priest’s work, it is not possible to argue that Cohen intended profane priest who is not considered intentional at all. Of course, that according to this approach is right in its claims Talmud – Cohen Machwein small for the worse has been his intention to holy Machwein incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rabbi Baruch Weintraub