Menachot 2a — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 📖 Mishna When one brings a meal offering to the Temple, the priest removes a handful from it, places the handful into a service v…

When one brings a meal offering to the Temple, the priest removes a handful from it, places the handful into a service vessel, conveys it to the altar, and burns it. At that point, the remainder is permitted to the priests for consumption and the owner has fulfilled his obligation. In this context, the mishna teaches: All the meal offerings from which a handful was removed not for their sake but for the sake of another meal offering are fit for sacrifice. But these offerings did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, who must therefore bring another offering. This is the halakha with regard to all meal offerings except for the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy, which is brought as part of the rite of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota]. In those cases, if the priest removed the handful not for its own sake, the offering is disqualified. With regard to the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy from which the priest removed a handful not for their sake, or where he placed a handful from them in a vessel, or conveyed the handful to the altar, or burned the handful on the altar, not for their sake, or for their sake and not for their sake, or not for their sake and for their sake, they are disqualified. The mishna elaborates: How are these rites performed for their sake and not for their sake? It is in a case where one removed the handful with two intentions: For the sake of the meal offering of a sinner and for the sake of a voluntary meal offering. How are these rites performed not for their sake and for their sake? It is in a case where one removed the handful with two intentions: For the sake of a voluntary meal offering and for the sake of the meal offering of a sinner.

▶ 💬 Guemara The mishna teaches: All the meal offerings from which a handful was removed not for their sake but for the sake of anoth…

The mishna teaches: All the meal offerings from which a handful was removed not for their sake but for the sake of another meal offering are fit for sacrifice, but these offerings did not satisfy the obligation of the owner. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach: But these offerings did not [ella shelo] satisfy the obligation of the owner? Let it teach simply: And they did not [velo] satisfy the obligation of the owner. What does the word ella add? The Gemara responds: By adding this word, the mishna teaches us that the only deficiency of these offerings is that they did not satisfy the obligation of the owner; but the meal offering itself is valid and it is still prohibited to deviate from the protocol of its sacrificial process. For example, if a handful was removed from a meal offering not for its own sake, it is prohibited to also burn it not for its own sake. This halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rava, as Rava says: With regard to a burnt offering that one slaughtered not for its own sake, it is still prohibited to sprinkle its blood on the altar not for its own sake. The Gemara adds: If you wish, propose a logical argument to support this statement; and if you wish, cite a verse as proof. The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, propose a logical argument: Just because one deviated from protocol in its sacrifice once, by removing the handful, could it be that he should continue to deviate from protocol in all the rest of the sacrificial rites? One deviation does not justify additional deviations. And if you wish, cite a verse: “That which has gone out of your lips you shall observe and do; according to what you have vowed as a gift offering to the Lord your God, that which you have promised with your mouth” (Deuteronomy 23:24). The Gemara analyzes the verse: Is it a gift offering? It is a vow offering. Why does the verse first call it a vow offering and subsequently call it a gift offering? Rather, the verse teaches that if you acted in accordance with how you vowed, i.e., if you sacrificed the offering for its own sake, your obligation to fulfill your vow will be fulfilled; but if you did not act in accordance with your vow, it does not fulfill the obligation incurred by the vow, and will be considered a gift offering.

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français La mishna enseigne : Toutes les offrandes de repas dont une poignée a été retirée non pour leur propre nom mais pour le …

La mishna enseigne : Toutes les offrandes de repas dont une poignée a été retirée non pour leur propre nom mais pour le nom d'une autre offrande de repas sont aptes au sacrifice, mais ces offrandes n'ont pas acquitté l'obligation du propriétaire. La Guemara demande : Pourquoi ai-je besoin que la mishna enseigne : Mais ces offrandes n'ont pas [ella shelo] acquitté l'obligation du propriétaire ? Qu'elle enseigne simplement : Et elles n'ont pas [velo] acquitté l'obligation du propriétaire. Qu'ajoute le mot ella ? La Guemara répond : En ajoutant ce mot, la mishna nous apprend que la seule déficience de ces offrandes est qu'elles n'ont pas acquitté l'obligation du propriétaire ; mais l'offrande de repas elle-même est valide et il est interdit de s'écarter du protocole de son processus sacrificiel. Par exemple, si une poignée a été retirée d'une offrande de repas non pour son propre nom, il est interdit de la brûler également non pour son propre nom. Cette halakha est conforme à la déclaration de Rava, car Rava dit : En ce qui concerne un holocauste que l'on a abattu non pour son propre nom, il est interdit d'en asperger le sang sur l'autel non pour son propre nom. La Guemara ajoute : Si tu veux, propose un argument logique pour appuyer cette déclaration ; et si tu veux, cite un verset comme preuve. La Guemara développe : Si tu veux, propose un argument logique : Du fait qu'il s'est écarté du protocole dans son sacrifice une fois, en retirant la poignée, pourrait-il être que il continue à s'écarter du protocole dans tous les autres rites sacrificiels ? Un écart ne justifie pas des écarts supplémentaires. Et si tu veux, cite un verset : « Ce qui est sorti de tes lèvres, tu l'observeras et tu le feras ; selon ce que tu as voué en offrande de don à l'Éternel, ton Dieu, ce que tu as promis de ta bouche » (Deutéronome 23:24). La Guemara analyse le verset : Est-ce une offrande de don ? C'est une offrande de vœu. Pourquoi le verset l'appelle-t-il d'abord une offrande de vœu et ensuite l'appelle-t-il une offrande de don ? Plutôt, le verset enseigne que si tu as agi conformément à ce que tu as voué, c'est-à-dire si tu as sacrifié l'offrande pour son propre nom, ton obligation d'accomplir ton vœu sera remplie ; mais si tu n'as pas agi conformément à ton vœu, cela n'acquitte pas l'obligation contractée par le vœu, et ce sera considéré comme une offrande de don.

📜 Menachot — 2a

📋 Références bibliques — Menachot 2a

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant