Meilah 2a — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 📖 Mishna Offerings of the most sacred order that were disqualified before their blood was sprinkled on the altar, e.g., if one sl…

Offerings of the most sacred order that were disqualified before their blood was sprinkled on the altar, e.g., if one slaughtered them in the south of the Temple courtyard, and not in the north as required, are subject to the following halakha: One is liable for misusing them, i.e., one who derives benefit from them must bring a guilt offering and pay the principal and an additional one-fifth of their value. If he improperly slaughtered them in the south of the courtyard and properly collected their blood in the north, or even if he properly slaughtered them in the north of the courtyard but improperly collected their blood in the south, although the more significant rite was performed improperly, one is liable for misuse if he derives benefit from the animals. The same halakha that applies if the location of the sacrificial rites was altered likewise applies if the time of those rites was altered. Accordingly, if one properly slaughtered them during the day and improperly sprinkled their blood at night, or if he improperly slaughtered them at night and properly sprinkled their blood during the day, one is liable for misuse if he derives benefit from the animals. Or in a case where one slaughtered them with the intent to partake of their meat or sprinkle their blood beyond its designated time, rendering it piggul, or outside its designated area, disqualifying the offering, he is liable for misusing them if he derives benefit from the animals. Rabbi Yehoshua stated a principle with regard to misuse of disqualified sacrificial animals: With regard to any sacrificial animal that had a period of fitness to the priests before it was disqualified, one is not liable for misusing it. Misuse applies specifically to items consecrated to God, which are not permitted for human consumption at all. Once the offering was permitted for consumption by the priests, it is no longer in that category. And with regard to any sacrificial animal that did not have a period of fitness for the priests before it was disqualified, one is liable for misusing it if he derives benefit from it, as it remained consecrated to God throughout. Which is the sacrificial animal that had a period of fitness for the priests? This category includes a sacrificial animal whose meat remained overnight after its blood was presented on the altar and therefore came to have the status of notar and was therefore disqualified, and one that was disqualified when it became ritually impure, and one that left the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified. All of these disqualifications transpired after consumption of the sacrificial meat was permitted, and therefore one who derives benefit from these offerings is not liable for misuse. And which is the sacrificial animal that did not have a period of fitness for the priests? It is a sacrificial animal that was slaughtered with the intent to partake of it or sprinkle its blood beyond its designated time, or outside its designated area, or one that those unfit for Temple service collected and sprinkled its blood. All of these disqualifications took effect before consumption of the sacrificial meat was permitted. The offerings therefore remain consecrated to God, and one is liable for misuse if he derives benefit from them.

▶ 💬 Guemara The mishna teaches: With regard to offerings of the most sacred order that were disqualified before their blood was spri…

The mishna teaches: With regard to offerings of the most sacred order that were disqualified before their blood was sprinkled on the altar, e.g., if one slaughtered them in the south of the Temple courtyard, one who derives benefit from them is liable for misusing them. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious? Just because their slaughter was performed in the south, should we revoke their status as subject to the halakhot of misuse? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to mention the case of slaughtering them in the south, as it might enter your mind to say that since Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Sacrificial animals that died without being sacrificed are excluded from being subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law, so too, in the case of offerings of the most sacred order that were improperly slaughtered in the south, they are considered as though they were strangled to death, and therefore they are no longer subject to misuse. Consequently, the mishna teaches us that although they were slaughtered improperly, they are not considered to have the status of sacrificial animals that died, as those are not fit at all. But with regard to slaughtering an animal in the south, although this is not fitting for offerings of the most sacred order, yet the act is still classified as slaughter of sacrificial animals, as slaughter in the south is fitting for offerings of lesser sanctity. § The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach all of these different cases? It could have mentioned just one case, from which one would have derived the principle that even in a situation where the rite of the offering is not performed in the proper manner, the animal can still be subject to the halakhot of misuse. The Gemara explains: All these cases are necessary. If the mishna had taught only the case of one who improperly slaughtered them in the south of the courtyard and properly collected their blood in the north, one might have thought that it is only here, in this case, that the animals are subject to the halakhot of misuse, as the collection of the blood was in the north. But if he slaughtered them in the north and collected their blood in the south, since the collection, which is a more fundamental rite than the slaughter, is in the south, one might think that they are removed from the status of being subject to the halakhot of misuse. Therefore, the mishna mentions that case as well. And if the mishna had taught only these aforementioned cases, I would say that only in such situations is the offering subject to the halakhot of misuse, as they were at least sacrificed during the day, which is the appropriate time for sacrifice. But if one slaughtered an offering at night and sprinkled its blood during the day, it would not be subject to the halakhot of misuse, as night is not the appropriate time for sacrifice, and therefore in this case of one who slaughtered at night, the animal is removed from its status of being subject to the halakhot of misuse. And if the mishna had taught only the case where he slaughtered it at night and collected the blood during the day, I would say: Since he collected the blood during the day, as required, the offering retains its status and is subject to the halakhot of misuse. But if he slaughtered animals during the day and sprinkled their blood, which is the main act of sacrifice, at night, since it is not a time fit for sacrifice, it is considered as though they were strangled, and they are not subject to the halakhot of misuse. Therefore, the mishna teaches us all of these cases. § The mishna teaches: If one slaughtered sacrificial animals with the intent to partake of their meat or sprinkle their blood beyond its designated time, rendering them piggul, or outside its designated area, disqualifying them, he is liable for misusing them if he derives benefit from them. The Gemara asks: For what are these sacrificial animals fit? Since they are unfit for both sacrifice and consumption by the priests, even in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity, why are they considered as consecrated items that are subject to misuse? The Gemara answers: Since sprinkling their blood on the altar renders them accepted in that they receive their status of being subject to piggul, therefore they have still not entirely lost their sanctified status and are subject to misuse. In other words, an offering with regard to which there was an improper intention is rendered piggul only if all its permitting factors, one of which is sprinkling the blood, are performed properly (see Zevaḥim 28b). The fact that its permitting factors are important for the purpose of rendering it subject to piggul shows that the offering has not lost its consecrated status.

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français La mishna enseigne : En ce qui concerne les offrandes du degré de sainteté le plus élevé qui ont été disqualifiées avant…

La mishna enseigne : En ce qui concerne les offrandes du degré de sainteté le plus élevé qui ont été disqualifiées avant que leur sang ne soit aspergé sur l’autel, par exemple, si on les a égorgées au sud du parvis du Temple, celui qui tire un bénéfice d’elles est passible de leur mauvais usage. La Guemara demande : N’est-ce pas évident ? Est-ce que, parce que leur égorgement a été effectué au sud, nous devrions leur retirer leur statut de sujétion aux halakhot de mauvais usage ? La Guemara répond : Il était nécessaire que la mishna mentionne le cas de l’égorgement au sud, car il pourrait venir à l’esprit de dire que, puisque Ulla dit que Rabbi Yoḥanan dit : Les animaux sacrificiels qui sont morts sans avoir été sacrifiés sont exclus de la sujétion aux halakhot de mauvais usage par la loi de la Torah, de même, dans le cas des offrandes du degré de sainteté le plus élevé qui ont été incorrectement égorgées au sud, elles sont considérées comme si elles avaient été étranglées à mort, et donc elles ne sont plus sujettes au mauvais usage. Par conséquent, la mishna nous apprend que, bien qu’elles aient été égorgées incorrectement, elles ne sont pas considérées comme ayant le statut d’animaux sacrificiels morts, car ceux-ci ne sont pas aptes du tout. Mais en ce qui concerne l’égorgement d’un animal au sud, bien que cela ne soit pas apte pour les offrandes du degré de sainteté le plus élevé, néanmoins l’acte est encore classifié comme un égorgement d’animaux sacrificiels, car l’égorgement au sud est apte pour les offrandes de moindre sainteté. § La Guemara demande : Pourquoi ai-je besoin que la mishna enseigne tous ces différents cas ? Elle aurait pu mentionner un seul cas, à partir duquel on aurait dérivé le principe que même dans une situation où le rite de l’offrande n’est pas accompli de la manière appropriée, l’animal peut encore être sujet aux halakhot de mauvais usage. La Guemara explique : Tous ces cas sont nécessaires. Si la mishna avait enseigné seulement le cas de celui qui a incorrectement égorgé au sud du parvis et correctement recueilli leur sang au nord, on aurait pu penser que c’est seulement ici, dans ce cas, que les animaux sont sujets aux halakhot de mauvais usage, car la recueil du sang a été au nord. Mais s’il les a égorgés au nord et a recueilli leur sang au sud, puisque la recueil, qui est un rite plus fondamental que l’égorgement, est au sud, on pourrait penser qu’ils sont retirés du statut de sujétion aux halakhot de mauvais usage. C’est pourquoi la mishna mentionne également ce cas. Et si la mishna avait enseigné seulement ces cas susmentionnés, je dirais que c’est seulement dans de telles situations que l’offrande est sujette aux halakhot de mauvais usage, car elles ont au moins été sacrifiées pendant le jour, qui est le moment approprié pour le sacrifice. Mais si on a égorgé une offrande la nuit et aspergé son sang pendant le jour, elle ne serait pas sujette aux halakhot de mauvais usage, car la nuit n’est pas le moment approprié pour le sacrifice, et donc dans ce cas de celui qui a égorgé la nuit, l’animal est retiré de son statut de sujétion aux halakhot de mauvais usage. Et si la mishna avait enseigné seulement le cas où il l’a égorgé la nuit et a recueilli le sang pendant le jour, je dirais : Puisqu’il a recueilli le sang pendant le jour, comme requis, l’offrande conserve son statut et est sujette aux halakhot de mauvais usage. Mais s’il a égorgé les animaux pendant le jour et a aspergé leur sang, qui est l’acte principal du sacrifice, la nuit, puisque ce n’est pas un moment apte pour le sacrifice, c’est considéré comme s’ils avaient été étranglés, et ils ne sont pas sujets aux halakhot de mauvais usage. C’est pourquoi la mishna nous apprend tous ces cas. § La mishna enseigne : Si l’on a égorgé des animaux sacrificiels avec l’intention de consommer de leur viande ou d’asperger leur sang au-delà de son temps désigné, les rendant piggul, ou hors de son aire désignée, les disqualifiant, il est passible de mauvais usage s’il tire un bénéfice d’eux. La Guemara demande : Pour quoi ces animaux sacrificiels sont-ils aptes ? Puisqu’ils ne sont aptes ni pour le sacrifice ni pour la consommation par les prêtres, même dans le cas des offrandes de moindre sainteté, pourquoi sont-ils considérés comme des objets consacrés sujets au mauvais usage ? La Guemara répond : Puisque l’aspersion de leur sang sur l’autel les rend acceptés en ce qu’ils reçoivent leur statut de sujétion au piggul, donc ils n’ont pas encore entièrement perdu leur statut sanctifié et sont sujets au mauvais usage. En d’autres termes, une offrande à l’égard de laquelle il y a eu une intention inappropriée n’est rendue piggul que si tous ses facteurs de permission, dont l’un est l’aspersion du sang, sont accomplis correctement (voir Zevaḥim 28b). Le fait que ses facteurs de permission soient importants dans le but de la rendre sujette au piggul montre que l’offrande n’a pas perdu son statut consacré.

📜 Meilah — 2a

📋 Références bibliques — Meilah 2a

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant