Beitzah 10b — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 📖 Mishna However, on the Festival it is prohibited, as sometimes those that seemed to him to be fat ones will be found to be thin…

However, on the Festival it is prohibited, as sometimes those that seemed to him to be fat ones will be found to be thin, and thin ones will be found to be fat, and he will move an object that is not suitable for him, thereby transgressing the prohibition against moving muktze objects. Alternatively, sometimes they will all be found to be thin, and he will leave them all, and he will come to neglect the rejoicing of the Festival. If, however, one announces the day before: I will take this one and that one, he will indeed take only those fledglings, thereby enhancing his Festival joy. If, on the eve of a Festival, one designated black fledglings to be slaughtered, and on the following day found white ones in the dovecote, rather than the birds he had designated, or if one designated white ones to be slaughtered and found black ones, or if one designated two fledglings to be slaughtered and found three, they are prohibited, as these are not the same fledglings he had designated earlier. If, however, one designated three to be slaughtered and found only two, they are permitted, as it is presumed that one of the fledglings escaped. If one designated them inside the nest and the next day he cannot find them there, and he found fledglings before the nest, they are prohibited, as they might be fledglings other than the ones he designated and left inside the nest. But if there are only those fledglings in the immediate vicinity, they are permitted, as it can be assumed that these are the ones he designated inside the nest.

▶ 💬 Guemara The Gemara asks: But it is obvious that if one designated black ones to be slaughtered and found white ones, they are no…

The Gemara asks: But it is obvious that if one designated black ones to be slaughtered and found white ones, they are not the same birds. Rabba said: With what are we dealing here? The mishna is referring to a case where one designated both black and white ones to be slaughtered, and he arose and found black ones in the place where the white ones had been, and white ones in the place of the black ones. Lest you say: These are those same fledglings and they simply exchanged places, the mishna teaches us that this claim is not accepted. Instead, it is assumed that these ones that he designated have gone to the outside world, and these ones that he found are others that have come from elsewhere. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this mishna supports Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina said: When resolving an uncertainty with regard to the identity of an item, if the majority indicates one ruling but the item in question is proximate to a source that indicates otherwise, one follows the majority. In this case, the majority of fledglings are prohibited, as they were not designated for use on the Festival. Consequently, the found fledglings are prohibited, despite the fact that the nearest fledglings are the designated ones. The Gemara refutes this suggestion: Perhaps it is as Abaye said with regard to a different issue: We are dealing with fledglings located on a ledge, a flat piece of wood protruding from the dovecote, around which many doves congregate. Here too, the mishna is referring to a ledge. Since other doves are regularly found there, the principle that one follows the majority rather than the proximate source does not apply, as both the majority of doves and the proximate source of doves are not the original ones, and therefore all the fledglings are prohibited. The mishna taught that if one designated two and found three, they are prohibited. The Gemara explains: Whichever way you look at this matter, the fledglings are prohibited. If these are others, they are others that have not been designated. And if they are not others, i.e., two of the fledglings that one designated are still there, nevertheless there is one that he certainly did not designate and that is mingled with them, which renders the others prohibited as well. § The mishna taught that if one designated three and found two, they are permitted. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains: These are the same ones, and one of them has gone to the outside world, leaving two behind. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and not that of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita: If one placed one hundred dinars of tithe money in a safe place and found two hundred there, it is assumed that this is non-sacred money and second-tithe money mingled together. Someone must have come and added another hundred to his tithe money. Therefore, he separates one dinar from the total and states: Whatever part of this is the tithe, is fine; whatever part of it is non-tithe money, let it be used to redeem the tithe money, and this should be sanctified as tithe money in its place. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: It is all non-sacred money. Since the money is not as he left it, the assumption is that someone took the original one hundred dinars; and he, or someone else, replaced it with two hundred dinars of regular money. Conversely, if one placed two hundred dinars and found one hundred dinars, it is presumed that one hundred dinars has been left in its place and is tithe money, and one hundred dinars was removed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: It is all non-sacred money. It is assumed that someone removed all the money, and the one hundred dinars he found must have been placed there by someone else, and is not connected to the money he left. The halakha with regard to the case of fledglings apparently follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion in the case of second-tithe money. The Gemara refutes this claim: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it can be explained, as it was stated with regard to this mishna that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: Fledglings are different, since they typically hop from place to place. Therefore, it is possible that one of them escaped. By contrast, a money pouch cannot move of its own accord and must have been taken by someone. The Gemara asks: And why do I need to answer with regard to it: Fledglings are different, since they typically hop? But wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna, which deals with a money pouch, that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree over it: One of them said: The dispute applies only to a case of two pouches, with one hundred dinars in each pouch. However, if all of the money was in a single pouch, everyone agrees that it is non-sacred money, as it is unlikely that only half of the money was removed while the other half was left in its place. And the other one of them said: The dispute applies only to one pouch, but with regard to two pouches, everyone agrees that one hundred dinars of tithe is left and one hundred dinars has been removed. The Gemara explains: Granted, according to the one who said that the dispute deals with a case of two pouches, this is why it was necessary to answer here: Fledglings are different, since they typically hop. However, according to the one who says that the dispute involves a case of one pouch, but with regard to two pouches everyone agrees that one hundred dinars of tithe is left and one hundred dinars has been removed, now consider: Why do I need to answer, with regard to it, that there is a difference between that halakha and the case of fledglings? You said that they do not disagree even with regard to two separate pouches, and therefore they certainly do not disagree in the case of fledglings. Rav Ashi said: Here we are dealing with fledglings tied together and with money pouches tied together. In other words, when it is stated that the dispute applies to one pouch, this refers to two pouches that are tied together, as well. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the rabbis agree only with regard to two pouches that are entirely separate. Consequently, it is necessary to explain that there is a difference between pouches tied together and fledglings tied together: Fledglings can release themselves from each other, and therefore it is possible that only one of them escaped, whereas pouches cannot release themselves from each other. Therefore, it is evident that someone must have taken them. Since they were tied together, he certainly took both of them. The Gemara asks: But if that is indeed the case, and it is obvious that someone came and took the money, what is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s reasoning? The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could have said to you: Pouches, too, sometimes

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français La Guemara demande : Mais il est évident que si l’on a désigné des oiseaux noirs pour être abattus et que l’on a trouvé …

La Guemara demande : Mais il est évident que si l’on a désigné des oiseaux noirs pour être abattus et que l’on a trouvé des oiseaux blancs, ce ne sont pas les mêmes oiseaux. Rabba a dit : De quoi s’agit-il ici ? La mishna se réfère à un cas où l’on a désigné à la fois des oiseaux noirs et blancs pour être abattus, et l’on s’est levé et l’on a trouvé des noirs à la place où se trouvaient les blancs, et des blancs à la place des noirs. De peur que tu dises : Ce sont ceux-là mêmes oisillons et ils ont simplement échangé de place, la mishna nous apprend que cette prétention n’est pas acceptée. Au contraire, on suppose que ceux-ci que l’on a désignés sont allés dans le monde extérieur, et ceux-ci que l’on a trouvés sont d’autres qui sont venus d’ailleurs. La Guemara suggère : Disons que cette mishna soutient Rabbi Ḥanina, comme Rabbi Ḥanina a dit : Lorsqu’on résout une incertitude quant à l’identité d’un objet, si la majorité indique une décision mais que l’objet en question est proche d’une source qui indique autrement, on suit la majorité. Dans ce cas, la majorité des oisillons sont interdits, car ils n’ont pas été désignés pour être utilisés lors de la Fête. Par conséquent, les oisillons trouvés sont interdits, malgré le fait que les oisillons les plus proches soient ceux qui ont été désignés. La Guemara réfute cette suggestion : Peut-être est-ce comme Abaye a dit à propos d’une autre question : Nous avons affaire à des oisillons situés sur une corniche, une planche de bois plate qui dépasse du colombier, autour de laquelle de nombreux pigeons se rassemblent. Ici aussi, la mishna se réfère à une corniche. Puisque d’autres pigeons s’y trouvent régulièrement, le principe selon lequel on suit la majorité plutôt que la source proche ne s’applique pas, car ni la majorité des pigeons ni la source proche des pigeons ne sont ceux d’origine, et donc tous les oisillons sont interdits. La mishna a enseigné que si l’on a désigné deux et que l’on a trouvé trois, ils sont interdits. La Guemara explique : De quelque manière que tu regardes cette affaire, les oisillons sont interdits. Si ce sont d’autres, ce sont d’autres qui n’ont pas été désignés. Et si ce ne sont pas d’autres, c’est-à-dire que deux des oisillons que l’on a désignés sont encore là, néanmoins il y en a un que l’on n’a certainement pas désigné et qui est mélangé avec eux, ce qui rend les autres également interdits. § La mishna a enseigné que si l’on a désigné trois et que l’on a trouvé deux, ils sont permis. La Guemara demande : Quelle est la raison de cela ? La Guemara explique : Ce sont les mêmes, et l’un d’eux est allé dans le monde extérieur, laissant deux derrière lui. La Guemara suggère : Disons que la mishna est conforme à l’opinion de Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, et non à celle des Rabbins, comme il est enseigné dans une baraita : Si l’on a placé cent dinars d’argent de dîme dans un endroit sûr et que l’on a trouvé deux cents là-bas, on suppose qu’il s’agit d’argent non sacré et d’argent de seconde dîme mélangés ensemble. Quelqu’un est venu et a ajouté cent autres à son argent de dîme. Par conséquent, il sépare un dinar du total et déclare : Quelle que soit la partie de ceci qui est la dîme, c’est bien ; quelle que soit la partie qui est de l’argent non sacré, qu’elle serve à racheter l’argent de la dîme, et que ceci soit sanctifié comme argent de dîme à sa place. C’est la déclaration de Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Et les Rabbins disent : Tout est non sacré argent. Puisque l’argent n’est pas comme il l’a laissé, on suppose que quelqu’un a pris les cent dinars originaux ; et lui, ou quelqu’un d’autre, les a remplacés par deux cents dinars d’argent ordinaire. Inversement, si l’on a placé deux cents dinars et que l’on a trouvé cent dinars, on présume que cent dinars ont été laissés à leur place et sont de l’argent de dîme, et cent dinars ont été retirés. C’est la déclaration de Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Et les Rabbins disent : Tout est non sacré argent. On suppose que quelqu’un a retiré tout l’argent, et les cent dinars que l’on a trouvés doivent avoir été placés là par quelqu’un d’autre, et ne sont pas liés à l’argent qu’il a laissé. La halakha concernant le cas des oisillons suit apparemment l’opinion de Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi dans le cas de l’argent de seconde dîme. La Guemara réfute cette prétention : Même si tu dis que la mishna est conforme à l’opinion des Rabbins, cela peut s’expliquer, car il a été dit à propos de cette mishna que Rabbi Yoḥanan et Rabbi Elazar disent tous deux : Les oisillons sont différents, car ils sautillent habituellement d’un endroit à l’autre. Par conséquent, il est possible que l’un d’eux se soit échappé. En revanche, une bourse d’argent ne peut pas se déplacer d’elle-même et doit avoir été prise par quelqu’un. La Guemara demande : Et pourquoi ai-je besoin de répondre à son sujet : Les oisillons sont différents, car ils sautillent habituellement ? Mais n’a-t-il pas été dit à propos de cette mishna, qui traite d’une bourse d’argent, que Rabbi Yoḥanan et Rabbi Elazar sont en désaccord à son sujet : L’un d’eux a dit : La dispute ne s’applique que à un cas de deux bourses, avec cent dinars dans chaque bourse. Cependant, si tout l’argent était dans une seule bourse, tout le monde est d’accord qu’il s’agit d’argent non sacré, car il est peu probable que seule la moitié de l’argent ait été retirée tandis que l’autre moitié a été laissée à sa place. Et l’autre un d’eux a dit : La dispute ne s’applique qu’à une seule bourse, mais en ce qui concerne deux bourses, tout le monde est d’accord que cent dinars de dîme sont laissés et cent dinars ont été retirés. La Guemara explique : Accordé, selon celui qui a dit que la dispute traite d’un cas de deux bourses, c’est pourquoi il a été nécessaire de répondre ici : Les oisillons [...]

📜 Beitzah — 10b

📋 Références bibliques — Beitzah 10b

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant