Megillah 7b — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 📖 Mishna You have fulfilled two mitzvot through us, our teacher: The mitzva of: “And sending portions one to another,” and the mi…

You have fulfilled two mitzvot through us, our teacher: The mitzva of: “And sending portions one to another,” and the mitzva of: “And gifts to the poor,” as Rabbi Oshaya was poor and this was a substantial gift. The Gemara relates that Rabba sent Purim portions from the house of the Exilarch to Marei bar Mar in the hands of Abaye, who was his nephew and student. The Purim portions consisted of a sack [taska] full of dates [kashva] and a cupful of roasted flour [kimḥa de’avshuna]. Abaye said to him: Now, Mari will say the popular expression: Even if a farmer becomes the king, the basket does not descend from his neck. Rabba was named the head of the yeshiva in Pumbedita, and nevertheless, he continued to send very plain gifts, because he was impoverished. Marei bar Mar sent back to him a sack full of ginger and a cupful of long peppers [pilpalta arikha], a much more expensive gift. Abaye said to him: The master, Rabba, will now say: I sent him sweet items and he sent me pungent ones. In describing that same incident, Abaye said: When I left the house of the master, Rabba, to go to Marei bar Mar, I was already satiated. However, when I arrived there at Marei bar Mar’s house, they served me sixty plates of sixty kinds of cooked dishes, and I ate sixty portions from each of them. The last dish was called pot roast, and I was still so hungry that I wanted to chew the plate afterward. And in continuation Abaye said: This explains the folk saying that people say: The poor man is hungry and does not know it, as Abaye was unaware how hungry he had been in his master’s house. Alternatively, there is another appropriate, popular expression: Room in the stomach for sweets can always be found. The Gemara relates that Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Avin would exchange their meals with each other to fulfill their obligation of sending portions on Purim. Rava said: A person is obligated to become intoxicated with wine on Purim until he is so intoxicated that he does not know how to distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordecai. The Gemara relates that Rabba and Rabbi Zeira prepared a Purim feast with each other, and they became intoxicated to the point that Rabba arose and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira. The next day, when he became sober and realized what he had done, Rabba asked God for mercy, and revived him. The next year, Rabba said to Rabbi Zeira: Let the Master come and let us prepare the Purim feast with each other. He said to him: Miracles do not happen each and every hour, and I do not want to undergo that experience again. Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? “Days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22) is written, i.e., days and not nights. The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi was sitting before Rav Kahana his teacher on Purim, and it grew dark and the Sages who usually came to study with him did not come. Rav Ashi said to him: What is the reason that the Sages did not come today? Rav Kahana answered: Perhaps they are preoccupied with the Purim feast. Rav Ashi said to him: Wasn’t it possible for them to eat the feast at night on Purim, instead of being derelict in their Torah study on Purim day? Rav Kahana said to him: Didn’t the master learn that which Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation? Rav Ashi said to him: Did Rava say that? Rav Kahana said to him: Yes. Rav Ashi then learned it from him forty times until he remembered it so well that it seemed to him as if it were placed in his purse. The previous mishna concluded with the formula: The difference between…is only, thereby distinguishing between the halakhot in two different cases. The following mishnayot employ the same formula and distinguish between the halakhot in cases unrelated to Purim and the Megilla. The first is: The difference between Festivals and Shabbat with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only in preparing food alone. It is permitted to cook and bake in order to prepare food on Festivals; however, on Shabbat it is prohibited.

▶ 💬 Guemara The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of actions that facilitate preparation of food, e.g., sharpening a knif…

The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of actions that facilitate preparation of food, e.g., sharpening a knife for slaughter, this, Shabbat, and that, Festivals, are equal, in that actions that facilitate preparation of food are prohibited. The Gemara comments: If so, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: The difference between Festivals and Shabbat is only preparing food. Rabbi Yehuda permits even actions that facilitate preparation of food on Festivals. The Gemara elaborates. What is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna? It is as the verse states: “Except that which every person must eat, only that may be done for you” (Exodus 12:16). “That” is permitted, and not actions that facilitate it. And Rabbi Yehuda says: “For you” means for you, for all your needs. The Gemara asks: And for the other, first, tanna too, isn’t it written: “For you”? The Gemara answers: He infers: For you, and not for gentiles; for you, and not for dogs. It is forbidden to perform labors for the sake of gentiles, or for animals, even if it is to feed them. The Gemara asks further: And for the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, too, isn’t it written: “That,” which is a restrictive term that limits the application of a particular halakha? The Gemara answers: It is written: “That,” which is restrictive, and it is written: “For you,” which is inclusive. Rabbi Yehuda resolves the conflict between the two: Here, the word: “That,” is referring to actions that facilitate, in which it is possible to perform them on the Festival eve but which are prohibited on the Festival; there, the phrase: “For you,” is referring to actions that facilitate, in which it is impossible to perform them on the Festival eve and which are permitted even on the Festival. MISHNA: The difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only that in this case, i.e., Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of Man, as he is stoned by a court based on the testimony of witnesses who forewarned the transgressor; and in that case, i.e., Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of God, with karet. GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of payment of damages, both this, Shabbat, and that, Yom Kippur, are equal in that one is exempt in both cases. If one performs an action on Shabbat that entails both a prohibited labor and damage to another’s property, since his transgression is punishable by death, he is exempt from paying damages. Apparently, according to the mishna, the same halakha applies to Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is the mishna taught? The Gemara answers: It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana would render Yom Kippur like Shabbat with regard to payment of damages. Just as in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Shabbat he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment of damages caused while desecrating Shabbat, so too, in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Yom Kippur, he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment of damages caused while desecrating Yom Kippur. We learned there in a mishna (Makkot 23a): All those liable to receive karet who were flogged in court were exempted from their karet, which is imposed by heaven. Most transgressors are liable to receive karet for violating prohibitions that are punishable by flogging. If they are flogged, they are exempt from karet, as it is stated with regard to one liable to receive lashes: “Then your brother shall be dishonored before you” (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating that once he was flogged he is like your brother, and his sins have been pardoned; this is the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him on this issue. Rava said that the Sages of the school of Rav said: We learned: The difference between Yom Kippur and Shabbat is only that in this case, Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of Man; and in that case, Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable with karet. And if the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel is so, in both this case, Shabbat, and that case, Yom Kippur, the punishment is at the hand of Man. Rav Naḥman said: There is no proof from here that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him, as in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said: There are no lashes in cases of those liable to receive karet, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: All those liable to receive karet in cases of incest were included in the principle: “For whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the persons that commit them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). And why was karet administered to one’s sister excluded from this verse and mentioned independently (Leviticus 20:17)? It is to sentence her to the punishment of karet and not to the punishment of lashes. This serves as a paradigm; wherever one is liable to receive karet, there are no lashes. Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the mishna is according to the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak and hold that there are lashes even in cases where there is liability for karet, there is no proof that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him. The mishna can be understood as follows: In this case, Shabbat, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is at the hand of Man; and in that case, Yom Kippur, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is with karet. If, however, he was flogged, he is exempt from karet.

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français La Guemara en déduit qu'en ce qui concerne les actions qui facilitent la préparation de la nourriture, par exemple aigui…

La Guemara en déduit qu'en ce qui concerne les actions qui facilitent la préparation de la nourriture, par exemple aiguiser un couteau pour l'abattage, ceci, Chabbat, et cela, les Fêtes, sont égaux, en ce que les actions qui facilitent la préparation de la nourriture sont interdites. La Guemara commente : Si tel est le cas, la mishna n'est pas conforme à l'opinion de Rabbi Yehouda, comme il est enseigné dans une baraita : La différence entre les Fêtes et Chabbat n'est que la préparation de la nourriture. Rabbi Yehouda permet même les actions qui facilitent la préparation de la nourriture lors des Fêtes. La Guemara développe. Quelle est la raison de l'opinion du premier tanna ? C'est que le verset dit : « Excepté ce que toute personne doit manger, cela seul sera fait pour vous » (Exode 12:16). « Cela » est permis, et non les actions qui le facilitent. Et Rabbi Yehouda dit : « Pour vous » signifie pour vous, pour tous vos besoins. La Guemara demande : Et pour l'autre, le premier tanna, aussi, n'est-il pas écrit : « Pour vous » ? La Guemara répond : Il en déduit : « Pour vous », et non pour les gentils ; « pour vous », et non pour les chiens. Il est interdit d'accomplir des travaux pour le bien des gentils, ou pour les animaux, même si c'est pour les nourrir. La Guemara demande encore : Et pour l'autre tanna, Rabbi Yehouda, aussi, n'est-il pas écrit : « Cela », qui est un terme restrictif limitant l'application d'une halakha particulière ? La Guemara répond : Il est écrit : « Cela », qui est restrictif, et il est écrit : « Pour vous », qui est inclusif. Rabbi Yehouda résout le conflit entre les deux : Ici, le mot : « Cela », se réfère aux actions qui facilitent, pour lesquelles il est possible de les accomplir la veille de la Fête mais qui sont interdites pendant la Fête ; là, l'expression : « Pour vous », se réfère aux actions qui facilitent, pour lesquelles il est impossible de les accomplir la veille de la Fête et qui sont permises même pendant la Fête. MISHNA : La différence entre Chabbat et Yom Kippour en ce qui concerne le travail interdit ces jours-là n'est que dans ce cas, c'est-à-dire Chabbat, sa profanation intentionnelle est punie par la main de l'homme, car il est lapidé par un tribunal sur la base du témoignage de témoins qui ont averti le transgresseur ; et dans ce cas, c'est-à-dire Yom Kippour, sa profanation intentionnelle est punie par la main de Dieu, par karet. GUEMARA : La Guemara en déduit qu'en ce qui concerne le paiement des dommages, ceci, Chabbat, et cela, Yom Kippour, sont égaux en ce que l'on est exempté dans les deux cas. Si l'on accomplit une action à Chabbat qui implique à la fois un travail interdit et un dommage à la propriété d'autrui, puisque sa transgression est punie de mort, il est exempté de payer des dommages. Apparemment, selon la mishna, la même halakha s'applique à Yom Kippour. La Guemara demande : Selon l'opinion de qui la mishna est-elle enseignée ? La Guemara répond : Elle est selon l'opinion de Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, comme il est enseigné dans une baraita : Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana rendait Yom Kippour comme Chabbat en ce qui concerne le paiement des dommages. De même que dans le cas de celui qui profane intentionnellement Chabbat, il est passible de la peine de mort et est donc exempté de l'obligation de paiement des dommages causés en profanant Chabbat, de même, dans le cas de celui qui profane intentionnellement Yom Kippour, il est passible de la peine de mort et est donc exempté de l'obligation de paiement des dommages causés en profanant Yom Kippour. Nous avons appris là-bas dans une mishna (Makkot 23a) : Tous ceux passibles de recevoir karet qui ont été flagellés en tribunal ont été exemptés de leur karet, qui est imposé par le ciel. La plupart des transgresseurs sont passibles de karet pour avoir violé des interdictions punissables par la flagellation. S'ils sont flagellés, ils sont exemptés du karet, comme il est dit à propos de celui qui est passible de recevoir des coups de fouet : « Alors ton frère sera déshonoré devant toi » (Deutéronome 25:3), indiquant que une fois qu'il a été flagellé, il est comme ton frère, et ses péchés ont été pardonnés ; c'est la déclaration de Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yoḥanan a dit : Les collègues de Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel sont en désaccord avec lui sur cette question. Rava a dit que les Sages de l'école de Rav ont dit : Nous avons appris : La différence entre Yom Kippour et Chabbat n'est que dans ce cas, Chabbat, sa profanation intentionnelle est punie par la main de l'homme ; et dans ce cas, Yom Kippour, sa profanation intentionnelle est punie par karet. Et si la déclaration de Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel est ainsi, dans ce cas, Chabbat, et dans ce cas, Yom Kippour, la punition est par la main de l'homme. Rav Naḥman a dit : Il n'y a pas de preuve d'ici que les collègues de Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel sont en désaccord avec lui, car selon l'opinion de qui cette mishna est-elle enseignée ? Elle est selon l'opinion de Rabbi Yitzḥak, qui a dit : Il n'y a pas de flagellation dans les cas de ceux qui sont passibles de recevoir karet, comme il est enseigné dans une baraita que Rabbi Yitzḥak dit : Tous ceux qui sont passibles de recevoir karet dans les cas d'inceste étaient inclus dans le principe : « Car quiconque commettra une de ces abominations, ceux qui les commettront seront retranchés du milieu de leur peuple » (Lévitique 18:29). Et pourquoi le karet pour sa sœur a-t-il été exclu de ce verset et mentionné séparément ?

📜 Megillah — 7b

📋 Références bibliques — Megillah 7b

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant