Chagigah 9a — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 📖 Mishna They taught that one may sacrifice the Festival peace-offering on the first Festival day but not on all seven days, as r…

They taught that one may sacrifice the Festival peace-offering on the first Festival day but not on all seven days, as recorded in the baraita on this amud below, only in a case where he did not finish. However, if he finished, he may go back and sacrifice. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term: Finish, in this context? If we say it means that he finished sacrificing all of his offerings, what is he going back to sacrifice? Rather, it means that if the day did not end and he still has offerings left over, he may not return to sacrifice those on other Festival days. However, if the day ended and he had not finished sacrificing his offerings, he may go back and sacrifice them. This shows that Rabbi Yoḥanan concedes that in these circumstances it is permitted to sacrifice Festival peace-offerings during the remaining days of the Festival. With regard to one who did not celebrate by bringing the Festival peace-offering on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, he may celebrate and bring it during the entire remaining days of the pilgrimage Festival, and even on the final day of the Festival, i.e., on the Eighth Day of Assembly. If the pilgrimage Festival passed and one did not celebrate by bringing the Festival peace-offering, he is not obligated to pay restitution for it. Even if he consecrated an animal for this purpose and it was lost, once the Festival is over he has no obligation to replace it, as he has missed the opportunity for performing this mitzva. And about this it is stated: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered” (Ecclesiastes 1:15). Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Who is the crooked that cannot be made straight? This verse is referring to one who engaged in intercourse with a woman forbidden to him and fathered a mamzer with her. This individual is unable to rectify his sin, because the status of the illegitimate child is permanent. And if you say that it is referring to one who steals or robs, although he is crooked he can return what he stole and in this manner his sin will be rectified. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: One calls crooked only someone who was initially straight and subsequently became crooked. And who is this? This is a Torah scholar who leaves his Torah study. Here is an example of something straight that became crooked.

▶ 💬 Guemara The mishna taught that if one did not bring his Festival peace-offering on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, he m…

The mishna taught that if one did not bring his Festival peace-offering on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, he may bring it even on the Eighth Day of Assembly, despite the fact that it is a separate Festival. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy. It is stated: “Assembly” (Deuteronomy 16:8), with regard to the seventh day of Passover, and it is stated: “Assembly” (Leviticus 23:36), with regard to the eighth day of the festival of Sukkot. Just as there, with regard to Passover, the day of assembly, i.e., the seventh day of Passover, is available for redress, as it is certainly part of the Festival, so too here, in the case of Sukkot, the Eighth Day of Assembly is available for redress. The Gemara adds that the term assembly in each of these contexts is free for this verbal analogy, i.e., it is superfluous in both contexts. As, if it is not free the verbal analogy can be refuted, because each context in which the term appears contains features that do not apply to the other one. What can one say about the seventh day of Passover? That it is not distinct from the days preceding it with regard to the Festival offerings and the prohibition against eating leavened bread. Can you say the same with regard to the eighth day of the festival of Sukkot, which is distinct from the days preceding it, i.e., that the Eighth Day of Assembly does not involve the same mitzvot as the festival of Sukkot? However, this is not so [la’ei], as the term assembly is certainly free. Now, what is the meaning of: “assembly [atzeret]”? It means that one is stopped [atzur], i.e., prohibited, from performing labor. But isn’t it already written: “You shall not perform labor” (Deuteronomy 16:8)? Why then do I need this term atzeret that the Merciful One writes? Rather, learn from here that it is free for the verbal analogy. The Gemara comments: And a tanna cites proof from here, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to a verse that deals with the festival of Sukkot: “And you shall keep it a feast to the Lord seven days” (Leviticus 23:41). One might have thought that one may continue to celebrate by bringing the Festival peace-offering all seven days of the Festival. Therefore, the verse states: “It,” which teaches: It, i.e., the first day of the Festival, you shall celebrate with these offerings, and you may not celebrate all seven days. If so, why is “seven” stated? For redress, i.e., if one failed to bring an offering on the first day he may do so all seven days. And from where is it derived that if one did not celebrate by bringing the Festival peace-offering on the first day of the festival of Sukkot that he may continue to celebrate throughout the pilgrimage Festival and even on the last festival day of Sukkot, which is the Eighth Day of Assembly? The verse states: “You shall keep it in the seventh month” (Leviticus 23:41), which indicates that one may bring the Festival offerings even after the seven days of the Festival. If the verse said only: “In the seventh month,” one might have thought that one may continue to celebrate by bringing the offering at any time during the rest of the entire month. Therefore, the verse states: “It,” indicating that you celebrate it, i.e., any of the Festival days, and you may not celebrate outside of these days. § The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the concept of redress mentioned in the baraita? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The other days are redress for the first day. If one did not bring the Festival offering on the first day, he may still do so on the remaining days of the Festival. And Rabbi Oshaya said: The days are redress for one another. Each day can be considered the main day of obligation, i.e., if one did not bring the offering on the first available day he may do so on the remaining days. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? Rabbi Zeira said: The practical difference between them is in a case of one who was lame on the first day of the Festival and was healed on the second day. Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the other days are redress for the first day; since he was not fit, i.e., was not qualified to sacrifice his offerings on the first day, he is not fit to do so even on the second, as the second day is redress for the first. The second day is not for those who were completely exempt on the first, but for those who were obligated to sacrifice but neglected to do so. And Rabbi Oshaya said that the days are redress for one another. Consequently, even though he was not fit to bring the offering on the first day, he is fit to do so on the second. Since a separate obligation applies on each day, even if one was unfit to bring the offering on the first day he must do so when he becomes fit. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this? Rabbi Yoḥanan was involved in a dispute with regard to a nazirite. A nazirite who becomes ritually impure as a result of contact with a corpse must undergo a seven-day process of ritual purification, after which he must bring a set of offerings and restart counting the days of his nazirite period. Usually, a nazirite may bring one set of offerings even for many occurrences of ritual impurity. However, if he came into contact with a corpse for a second time on the eighth day after he first became ritually impure he must bring two sets of offerings, as the second impurity occurred at a time when he could have begun counting the days of his nazirite vow again. The amora’im dispute the details of this halakha. The Gemara continues. Didn’t Ḥizkiya say that if a nazirite became ritually impure on the eighth day itself, he brings a second set of offerings? However, if he became ritually impure on the previous night he does not bring an additional set of offerings, because he could not have brought the offering at night. Although seven complete days have passed, as he did not yet have the opportunity to bring the offering, it is as though his seven days were not yet complete. Consequently, he may still bring one set of offerings for the two instances of ritual impurity. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if the nazirite became ritually impure on the night on which the eighth day begins, he also brings a second set of offerings. Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that this nazirite is effectively ready to begin counting the days of his vow again, as only the technicality that one may not bring offerings at night prevents him from doing so. This shows that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, even when one is incapable of sacrificing his offerings, his obligation remains intact. So too, in the case of a lame person, his obligation to bring the Festival offering applies in theory even on the first day, which means that he should be able to bring the offerings at a later date during the Festival. Rabbi Yirmeya said: The case of one who cannot bring an offering due to ritual impurity is different. He is not completely disqualified, as there is redress for ritual purity. This can be demonstrated from the halakha of the second Pesaḥ. Just as one who is ritually impure and may not sacrifice the Paschal offering has the opportunity to redress the situation by means of the second Pesaḥ, so too, anyone who cannot bring an offering due to impurity may redress this at a later date. Rav Pappa strongly objects to this reasoning: This works out well according to the one who said that the second Pesaḥ

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français La mishna a enseigné que si l’on n’a pas apporté son sacrifice de paix de la fête le premier jour de la fête de Soukot, …

La mishna a enseigné que si l’on n’a pas apporté son sacrifice de paix de la fête le premier jour de la fête de Soukot, on peut l’apporter même le huitième jour de l’Assemblée, bien que ce soit une fête distincte. La Guemara demande : D’où proviennent ces choses ? Rabbi Yoḥanan a dit au nom de Rabbi Yishmaël que cette halakha est dérivée par une analogie verbale. Il est dit : « Assemblée » (Deutéronome 16:8), à propos du septième jour de Pâque, et il est dit : « Assemblée » (Lévitique 23:36), à propos du huitième jour de la fête de Soukot. De même que là, à propos de Pâque, le jour de l’assemblée, c’est-à-dire le septième jour de Pâque, est disponible pour la compensation, car il fait certainement partie de la fête, de même ici, dans le cas de Soukot, le huitième jour de l’Assemblée est disponible pour la compensation. La Guemara ajoute que le terme « assemblée » dans chacun de ces contextes est libre pour cette analogie verbale, c’est-à-dire qu’il est superflu dans les deux contextes. Car, s’il n’est pas libre, l’analogie verbale peut être réfutée, parce que chaque contexte dans lequel le terme apparaît contient des caractéristiques qui ne s’appliquent pas à l’autre. Que peut-on dire du septième jour de Pâque ? Qu’il n’est pas distinct des jours qui le précèdent en ce qui concerne les sacrifices de la fête et l’interdiction de manger du pain levé. Peux-tu dire la même chose à propos du huitième jour de la fête de Soukot, qui est distinct des jours qui le précèdent, c’est-à-dire que le huitième jour de l’Assemblée n’implique pas les mêmes mitsvot que la fête de Soukot ? Cependant, il n’en est pas ainsi [la’ei], car le terme « assemblée » est certainement libre. Maintenant, quel est le sens de : « assemblée [atzeret] » ? Cela signifie que l’on est arrêté [atzur], c’est-à-dire interdit, d’accomplir un travail. Mais n’est-il pas déjà écrit : « Tu ne feras aucun travail » (Deutéronome 16:8) ? Pourquoi alors ai-je besoin de ce terme atzeret que le Miséricordieux écrit ? Plutôt, apprends d’ici qu’il est libre pour l’analogie verbale. La Guemara commente : Et un tanna cite une preuve d’ici, comme il est enseigné dans une baraita à propos d’un verset qui traite de la fête de Soukot : « Et vous la célébrerez comme une fête à l’Éternel sept jours » (Lévitique 23:41). On aurait pu penser que l’on peut continuer à célébrer en apportant le sacrifice de paix de la fête tous les sept jours de la fête. Par conséquent, le verset dit : « Elle », ce qui enseigne : Elle, c’est-à-dire le premier jour de la fête, tu la célébreras avec ces sacrifices, et tu ne peux pas célébrer tous les sept jours. Si c’est le cas, pourquoi « sept » est-il dit ? Pour la compensation, c’est-à-dire que si l’on a omis d’apporter un sacrifice le premier jour, on peut le faire tous les sept jours. Et d’où est-il dérivé que si l’on n’a pas célébré en apportant le sacrifice de paix de la fête le premier jour de la fête de Soukot, on peut continuer à célébrer pendant toute la fête de pèlerinage et même le dernier jour de la fête de Soukot, qui est le huitième jour de l’Assemblée ? Le verset dit : « Tu la célébreras au septième mois » (Lévitique 23:41), ce qui indique que l’on peut apporter les sacrifices de la fête même après les sept jours de la fête. Si le verset disait seulement : « Au septième mois », on aurait pu penser que l’on peut continuer à célébrer en apportant le sacrifice à tout moment pendant tout le reste du mois. Par conséquent, le verset dit : « Elle », indiquant que tu la célèbres, c’est-à-dire l’un des jours de la fête, et tu ne peux pas célébrer en dehors de ces jours. § La Guemara demande : Quel est le sens du concept de compensation mentionné dans la baraita ? La Guemara répond que Rabbi Yoḥanan a dit : Les autres jours sont une compensation pour le premier jour. Si l’on n’a pas apporté le sacrifice de la fête le premier jour, on peut encore le faire les jours restants de la fête. Et Rabbi Oshaya a dit : Les jours sont une compensation les uns pour les autres. Chaque jour peut être considéré comme le jour principal de l’obligation, c’est-à-dire que si l’on n’a pas apporté le sacrifice le premier jour disponible, on peut le faire les jours restants. La Guemara demande : Quelle est la différence pratique entre ces deux explications ? Rabbi Zeira a dit : La différence pratique entre elles est dans le cas de celui qui était boiteux le premier jour de la fête et a été guéri le deuxième jour. Rabbi Yoḥanan a dit que les autres jours sont une compensation pour le premier jour ; puisqu’il n’était pas apte, c’est-à-dire qu’il n’était pas qualifié pour sacrifier ses offrandes le premier jour, il n’est pas apte à le faire même le deuxième, car le deuxième jour est une compensation pour le premier. Le deuxième jour n’est pas pour ceux qui étaient complètement exempts le premier, mais pour ceux qui étaient obligés de sacrifier mais ont négligé de le faire. Et Rabbi Oshaya a dit que les jours sont une compensation les uns pour les autres. Par conséquent, même s’il n’était pas apte à apporter le sacrifice le premier jour, il est apte à le faire le deuxième. Puisqu’une obligation distincte s’applique chaque jour, même si l’on n’était pas apte à apporter le sacrifice le premier jour, on doit le faire lorsqu’on devient apte. La Guemara demande : Et Rabbi Yoḥanan a-t-il réellement dit cela ? Rabbi Yoḥanan était impliqué dans une dispute concernant un nazirite. Un nazirite qui devient rituellement impur par contact avec un cadavre doit subir un processus de purification rituelle de sept jours, après quoi il doit apporter un ensemble de sacrifices et recommencer à compter les jours de sa période de naziréat. Habituellement, un nazirite peut apporter un seul ensemble de sacrifices même pour de nombreuses occurrences [...]

📜 Chagigah — 9a

📋 Références bibliques — Chagigah 9a

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant