Pessahim 11b — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 📖 Mishna about his property, as the priest who is watching the firstborn wants to slaughter it before it dies, as if it dies, eat…

about his property, as the priest who is watching the firstborn wants to slaughter it before it dies, as if it dies, eating it would be prohibited. Therefore, we say: If you permit him to let blood in a place that does not cause a blemish in the animal, he will come to do so in a place that causes a blemish in it, to save his animal. And the Rabbis respond that if that is the case, all the more so should it be permitted to let blood in a manner that will not cause a blemish, for if you do not permit him to take any steps to save the animal at all, he will come to act in a prohibited manner and cause a blemish. If there is a legitimate alternative, he will not cause a blemish in the firstborn. The Gemara challenges this explanation: And do we say that according to Rabbi Yehuda a person is agitated about his property? But didn’t we learn in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may not scrape an animal on a Festival with a fine-tooth comb, because in doing so he inflicts a wound, which is prohibited on Festivals? However, one may scratch an animal with a wide-tooth comb, as this does not inflict a wound. And the Rabbis say: One may neither scrape nor even scratch, for if one were permitted to scratch an animal he might come to scrape it as well. And it was taught in the Tosefta: What is scraping and what is scratching? Scraping is performed with a comb with small teeth and with which one inflicts a wound. Scratching is performed with a comb that has large teeth and with which one does not inflict a wound. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not issue a decree to prohibit scratching lest one come to scrape, even though he is agitated over his property. The Gemara rejects this contention: There, with regard to a firstborn, it is different, for if he leaves it and does nothing the animal will die, and therefore we say that a person is agitated over his property. In his agitated state he will overlook the details of permitted and prohibited actions and violate a prohibition. Here, however, if he leaves his animal and does not comb it, it will merely suffer pain from the stinging insects. In that case we do not say that a person is agitated about his property. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, what is different with regard to leavened bread that he issued a decree lest a person come to eat the prohibited food, and what is different with regard to scraping that he did not issue a comparable decree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that unleavened bread might be interchanged with leavened bread, whereas scraping would not be interchanged with scratching. Since one uses a completely different utensil in the performance of the prohibited action, interchanging the two actions is unlikely. The tanna’im disagree regarding until what time leaven may be eaten and at what time it must be removed on Passover eve. Rabbi Meir says: One may eat leaven the entire fifth hour of the fourteenth of Nisan, and one must burn it immediately afterward at the beginning of the sixth hour. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may eat the entire fourth hour and one places it in abeyance for the entire fifth hour, and one burns it at the beginning of the sixth hour. And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: Two disqualified loaves of a thanks-offering are placed on the bench in the colonnade in the Temple as an indicator. There was a specially designated place for these loaves in the Temple. As long as the loaves are placed there, the entire nation continues to eat leaven. When one of the loaves was taken away, the people know that the time had come to place the leaven in abeyance, meaning that they neither eat nor burn their leaven. When they were both taken away, the entire nation began burning their leaven. Rabban Gamliel says that the times are divided differently: Non-sacred foods are eaten the entire fourth hour, and teruma may be eaten during the entire fifth hour. Since it is a mitzva to eat teruma and burning it is prohibited, additional time was allocated for its consumption. And one burns all leaven including teruma at the beginning of the sixth hour.

▶ 💬 Guemara The Gemara seeks to draw a comparison between this dispute of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and a dispute between them on …

The Gemara seeks to draw a comparison between this dispute of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and a dispute between them on a different topic. We learned in a mishna there: If one witness says that an incident occurred on the second day of the month and one other witness says that it happened on the third day of that month, their testimony is valid. This minor contradiction does not invalidate the testimony. The mishna explains: The reason is that this witness knows about the addition of an extra day to the previous month. Since he knows that the court added a day to the previous month, which lasted thirty days, he testifies that the incident occurred on the second day of the month. And that witness does not know about the addition of an extra day to the previous month, and he therefore thinks that the incident in question occurred on the third of the month. If one says that the incident occurred on the third day of the month and one says it happened on the fifth, their testimony is void, as there is no way to rationalize this contradiction. Similarly, if one says the incident occurred at two hours of the day and one says it happened at three hours, their testimony is valid, as that discrepancy could be the result of the lack of precision. However, if one says it occurred at three hours and one says it took place at five hours, their testimony is void. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: In the last case, their testimony is valid, as it could be that one is slightly mistaken. However, if one says it happened at five hours and one says at seven hours, everyone agrees that their testimony is void. That is a clear contradiction that cannot be rationalized as a miscalculation, as at five hours of the day the sun is in the east, and at seven hours the sun is already in the west. It is impossible to confuse the fifth hour with the seventh. Abaye said: When analyzing the matter, you will find that you can say that according to the statement of Rabbi Meir a person does not err at all, as Rabbi Meir assumes that people know the exact time of day. According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda a person errs up to half an hour. Abaye elaborates: According to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person does not err at all, and the reason that in the case where one says two hours and one says three the testimony is valid is that the incident actually occurred as the second hour ended and the third hour began. And when this witness said it happened in the second hour he was referring to the end of the second hour. When that witness said the third hour he was referring to the beginning of the third hour. It is possible that both witnesses spoke the truth. Abaye continues his explanation: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, a person errs by half an hour, as when the incident occurred, it occurred at the midpoint of the fourth hour, at three and a half hours of the day. And this witness, who says three hours, means the end of the third hour, and he errs by saying that it occurred half an hour before the incident actually occurred. And that witness, who says five hours, means the beginning of the fifth hour, i.e., the end of the fourth hour, and he errs by saying that it occurred half an hour after the incident actually occurred. Since it is possible that their testimonies do not conflict, their testimony is valid. Some say a different version of this statement. Abaye said: When analyzing the matter, you will find that you can say that according to Rabbi Meir a person errs a bit, and according to Rabbi Yehuda a person errs by an hour and a bit. Abaye elaborates: According to Rabbi Meir, a person errs a bit, as when the incident occurred, it occurred either at the end of the second hour or at the beginning of the third hour, and one of the two witnesses errs a bit. According to Rabbi Yehuda, a person errs by an hour and a bit, as when the incident occurred, it occurred either at the end of the third hour or at the beginning of the fifth hour,

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français La Guemara cherche à établir une comparaison entre cette dispute de Rabbi Meir et Rabbi Yehouda et une dispute entre eux…

La Guemara cherche à établir une comparaison entre cette dispute de Rabbi Meir et Rabbi Yehouda et une dispute entre eux sur un autre sujet. Nous avons appris dans une mishna là-bas : Si un témoin dit qu’un incident s’est produit le deuxième jour du mois et un autre témoin dit que cela s’est passé le troisième jour de ce mois, leur témoignage est valable. Cette contradiction mineure n’invalide pas le témoignage. La mishna explique : La raison est que ce témoin connaît l’ajout d’un jour supplémentaire au mois précédent. Puisqu’il sait que le tribunal a ajouté un jour au mois précédent, qui a duré trente jours, il témoigne que l’incident s’est produit le deuxième jour du mois. Et ce témoin ne connaît pas l’ajout d’un jour supplémentaire au mois précédent, et il pense donc que l’incident en question s’est produit le troisième du mois. Si l’un dit que l’incident s’est produit le troisième jour du mois et l’un dit que cela s’est passé le cinquième, leur témoignage est nul, car il n’y a aucun moyen de rationaliser cette contradiction. De même, si l’un dit que l’incident s’est produit à deux heures du jour et l’un dit que cela s’est passé à trois heures, leur témoignage est valable, car cet écart pourrait résulter d’un manque de précision. Cependant, si l’un dit que cela s’est produit à trois heures et l’un dit que cela a eu lieu à cinq heures, leur témoignage est nul. C’est la déclaration de Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehouda dit : Dans le dernier cas, leur témoignage est valable, car il se pourrait que l’un se trompe légèrement. Cependant, si l’un dit que cela s’est produit à cinq heures et l’un dit à sept heures, tout le monde est d’accord que leur témoignage est nul. C’est une contradiction claire qui ne peut être rationalisée comme une erreur de calcul, car à cinq heures du jour le soleil est à l’est, et à sept heures le soleil est déjà à l’ouest. Il est impossible de confondre la cinquième heure avec la septième. Abaye dit : Quand on analyse la question, tu trouveras que tu peux dire que selon la déclaration de Rabbi Meir, une personne ne se trompe pas du tout, car Rabbi Meir suppose que les gens connaissent l’heure exacte du jour. Selon la déclaration de Rabbi Yehouda, une personne se trompe jusqu’à une demi-heure. Abaye développe : Selon la déclaration de Rabbi Meir, une personne ne se trompe pas du tout, et la raison pour laquelle, dans le cas où l’un dit deux heures et l’un dit trois heures, le témoignage est valable est que l’incident s’est en réalité produit alors que la deuxième heure se terminait et que la troisième heure commençait. Et quand ce témoin a dit que cela s’est passé dans la deuxième heure, il faisait référence à la fin de la deuxième heure. Quand ce témoin a dit la troisième heure, il faisait référence à le début de la troisième heure. Il est possible que les deux témoins aient dit la vérité. Abaye poursuit son explication : Selon la déclaration de Rabbi Yehouda, une personne se trompe de une demi-heure, car quand l’incident s’est produit, il s’est produit au milieu de la quatrième heure, à trois heures et demie du jour. Et ce témoin, qui dit trois heures, veut dire la fin de la troisième heure, et il se trompe en disant que cela s’est produit une demi-heure avant que l’incident ne se produise réellement. Et ce témoin, qui dit cinq heures, veut dire le début de la cinquième heure, c’est-à-dire la fin de la quatrième heure, et il se trompe en disant que cela s’est produit une demi-heure après que l’incident ne se soit réellement produit. Puisqu’il est possible que leurs témoignages ne soient pas en conflit, leur témoignage est valable. Certains disent une version différente de cette déclaration. Abaye dit : Quand on analyse la question, tu trouveras que tu peux dire que selon Rabbi Meir, une personne se trompe un peu, et selon Rabbi Yehouda, une personne se trompe de une heure et un peu. Abaye développe : Selon Rabbi Meir, une personne se trompe un peu, car quand l’incident s’est produit, il s’est produit soit à la fin de la deuxième heure soit au début de la troisième heure, et l’un des deux témoins se trompe un peu. Selon Rabbi Yehouda, une personne se trompe de une heure et un peu, car quand l’incident s’est produit, il s’est produit soit à la fin de la troisième heure soit au début de la cinquième heure,

📜 Pessahim — 11b

📋 Références bibliques — Pessahim 11b

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant