Houllin 25b — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 📖 Mishna to smooth, to set gems or ornaments in it, to plane it, to adorn it, to strike it with a hammer, or if it is lacking a b…

to smooth, to set gems or ornaments in it, to plane it, to adorn it, to strike it with a hammer, or if it is lacking a base or a rim or a handle, the vessel is not susceptible to impurity. If the vessel was complete and was lacking a cover, the vessel is susceptible to becoming impure. The Gemara asks: What is different about these unfinished wooden vessels, with regard to which the halakha is that provided they are fit for use they are susceptible to impurity, and what is different about those unfinished metal vessels, with regard to which the halakha is that even if they are fit for use they are not susceptible to impurity until their crafting is complete? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The difference is that since metal vessels are crafted for uses of honor, they are not considered vessels until their completion. Rav Naḥman said: The difference is that since the worth of metal vessels is expensive, they cannot be sold at that price unless they are complete. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between their opinions? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to bone vessels crafted from horns, which are expensive but are not crafted for uses of honor. And Rav Naḥman follows his line of reasoning, as Rav Naḥman says: The halakhic status of bone vessels with regard to impurity is like that of metal vessels. The Gemara asks: Is that to say by inference that bone vessels are susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara answers: Yes, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “And all work of goats…you shall purify” (Numbers 31:20)? It is to include vessels that come from the goats, from the horns and from the hooves, and indicate that they are susceptible to impurity. And from where is it derived that vessels that come from the horns and the hooves of other domesticated animals and undomesticated animals are susceptible to impurity? It is derived from the verse, as the verse states: “And all work,” where the term “all” is an amplification. If so, why must the verse state: “Goats?” It serves to exclude birds, as vessels crafted from the bones of birds are not susceptible to impurity. With regard to the obligation of separating teruma and tithes, the stage of development that is obligated in bitter almonds is exempt in sweet almonds; and the stage in development that is obligated in sweet almonds is exempt in bitter almonds.

▶ 💬 Guemara The Sages taught in explanation of the mishna: In the case of bitter almonds, when they are small one is obligated to se…

The Sages taught in explanation of the mishna: In the case of bitter almonds, when they are small one is obligated to separate teruma and tithes, as they are not yet bitter and are fit for consumption; when they are large one is exempt from separating teruma and tithes, because they are bitter and unfit for consumption. In the case of sweet almonds, when they are large one is obligated to separate teruma and tithes, because the almonds are ripe and fit for consumption; when they are small one is exempt from separating teruma and tithes, because they are not fit for consumption. With regard to bitter almonds, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father to exempt both this small almond and that large almond. And some say to obligate both this small almond and that large almond. Rabbi Ela said: Rabbi Ḥanina issued a ruling in Tzippori in accordance with the statement of the one who says to exempt both this small almond and that large almond. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says to obligate both this small almond and that large almond, for what use are the large almonds fit? They are bitter and unfit for consumption. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since one can sweeten them by means of roasting them on the fire, this renders them fit for consumption. MISHNA: Temed, a beverage produced from grape residue soaked in water, until it fermented, may not be purchased with second-tithe money to be drunk in Jerusalem, because it is not wine. And if three log of it fall into a ritual bath, its halakhic status is that of drawn water and it invalidates the ritual bath. Once it fermented, it is wine, and therefore it may be purchased with second-tithe money and it does not invalidate the ritual bath. With regard to brothers who are partners in the inheritance of their father, when they are obligated to add the premium [kalbon] to their annual half-shekel payment to the Temple, they are exempt from animal tithe; when they are obligated to separate animal tithe, they are exempt from adding the premium. Partners who pay the half-shekel are required to add the premium and are exempt from animal tithe. If they are not true partners, but their inheritance remains the property of the father, the sons are exempt from paying the premium, and they are obligated to separate animal tithe. GEMARA: With regard to temed, the Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? Ostensibly, it is neither the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor the opinion of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a mishna (Ma’asrot 5:6): With regard to one who prepares temed by placing water over grape byproducts, and he placed a certain measure of water, and when measuring the finished product he found its measure equivalent to the measure of water that he placed, he is exempt from the obligation of tithing it, as although it tastes like wine, there is nothing in it but water. And Rabbi Yehuda obligates him to tithe it because the taste determines that it is wine. Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If it is the opinion of the Rabbis, then if there is no more than the initial measure of water that he placed, he should be exempt even if it fermented. If it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he holds that one is obligated even if it did not ferment, as taste is his sole criterion. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said:

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français Les Sages ont enseigné en explication de la mishna : Dans le cas des amandes amères, lorsqu'elles sont petites, on est o…

Les Sages ont enseigné en explication de la mishna : Dans le cas des amandes amères, lorsqu'elles sont petites, on est obligé de prélever la teruma et les dîmes, car elles ne sont pas encore amères et sont propres à la consommation ; lorsqu'elles sont grandes, on est exempté de prélever la teruma et les dîmes, parce qu'elles sont amères et impropres à la consommation. Dans le cas des amandes douces, lorsqu'elles sont grandes, on est obligé de prélever la teruma et les dîmes, parce que les amandes sont mûres et propres à la consommation ; lorsqu'elles sont petites, on est exempté de prélever la teruma et les dîmes, parce qu'elles ne sont pas propres à la consommation. En ce qui concerne les amandes amères, Rabbi Yichmaël, fils de Rabbi Yosseï, dit au nom de son père pour exonérer à la fois cette petite amande et cette grande amande. Et certains disent pour obliger à la fois cette petite amande et cette grande amande. Rabbi Ela a dit : Rabbi Ḥanina a rendu une décision à Tzippori conformément à la déclaration de celui qui dit pour exonérer à la fois cette petite amande et cette grande amande. La Guemara demande : Et selon celui qui dit pour obliger à la fois cette petite amande et cette grande amande, à quoi les grandes amandes sont-elles propres ? Elles sont amères et impropres à la consommation. Rabbi Yoḥanan a dit : Puisqu'on peut les adoucir au moyen de leur torréfaction sur le feu, cela les rend propres à la consommation. MISHNA : Temed, une boisson produite à partir de résidus de raisin trempés dans l'eau, tant qu'il n'a pas fermenté, ne peut pas être acheté avec l'argent de la dîme seconde pour être bu à Jérusalem, parce que ce n'est pas du vin. Et si trois log de celui-ci tombent dans un bain rituel, son statut halakhique est celui d'eau puisée et il invalide le bain rituel. Une fois qu'il a fermenté, il est du vin, et par conséquent il peut être acheté avec l'argent de la dîme seconde et il n'invalide pas le bain rituel. En ce qui concerne des frères qui sont associés dans l'héritage de leur père, lorsqu'ils sont obligés de payer la prime [kalbon] sur leur paiement annuel du demi-shekel au Temple, ils sont exemptés de la dîme animale ; lorsqu'ils sont obligés de prélever la dîme animale, ils sont exemptés de payer la prime. Les associés qui paient le demi-shekel sont tenus de payer la prime et sont exemptés de la dîme animale. S'ils ne sont pas de véritables associés, mais que leur héritage reste la propriété du père, les fils sont exemptés de payer la prime, et ils sont obligés de prélever la dîme animale. GUEMARA : En ce qui concerne le temed, la Guemara demande : De qui l'opinion est exprimée dans la mishna ? Apparemment, ce n'est ni l'opinion de Rabbi Yehuda ni celle des Rabbins, comme il est enseigné dans une mishna (Ma'asrot 5:6) : En ce qui concerne celui qui prépare du temed en plaçant de l'eau sur des sous-produits de raisin, et qu'il a placé une certaine mesure d'eau, et qu'en mesurant le produit fini il a trouvé sa mesure équivalente à la mesure d'eau qu'il avait placée, il est exempté de l'obligation de le dîmer, car bien que cela ait le goût du vin, il n'y a en lui que de l'eau. Et Rabbi Yehuda l'oblige à le dîmer parce que le goût détermine que c'est du vin. De qui l'opinion est exprimée dans la mishna ? Si c'est l'opinion des Rabbins, alors s'il n'y a pas plus que la mesure initiale d'eau qu'il a placée, il devrait être exempté même s'il a fermenté. Si c'est l'opinion de Rabbi Yehuda, il tient qu'on est obligé même s'il n'a pas fermenté, car le goût est son seul critère. Rav Naḥman a dit que Rabba bar Avuh a dit :

📜 Houllin — 25b

📋 Références bibliques — Houllin 25b

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant