Pessahim 13b — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 💬 Guemara their decrease in value is at the standard rate of stored produce, due to rot and rodents. However, if their decrease in…

their decrease in value is at the standard rate of stored produce, due to rot and rodents. However, if their decrease in value is beyond the standard rate, everyone agrees that one sells them in court; and all the more so in the case here, with regard to leavened bread, as the bread will be entirely lost. Once the leaven is prohibited, it remains prohibited even after Passover. Consequently, everyone agrees that one is obligated to sell the leaven. We learned in the mishna: And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: Two disqualified loaves of a thanks-offering are placed on the pillars surrounding the Temple as an indicator. The tanna who recited mishnayot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rav Yehuda: The loaves were placed on [al gav] the bench in the Temple. He said to him: And does he need to conceal them? No one would see them if they were placed there. Rather, teach the baraita: On the roof of [al gag] the colonnade, where everyone could see them. Raḥava said that Rabbi Yehuda said: The Temple Mount was a double colonnade, i.e., surrounded by two rows of columns. That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says it was called an istevanit and it was a colonnade within a colonnade. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says these two loaves placed outside were disqualified. The Gemara asks: Why were they disqualified? What caused their disqualification? Rabbi Ḥanina said: Since the thanks-offerings brought that day are numerous, and the priests are unable to eat their portions from the loaves of all the offerings, the remaining loaves are disqualified by virtue of their being left overnight. The Gemara explains that so many loaves were brought that day, as it was taught in a baraita: One may not bring a thanks-offering on the festival of Passover due to the leavened bread included with it, as ten of the forty loaves brought with a thanks-offering are loaves of leavened bread. The Gemara raises a difficulty: It is obvious that one may not bring this offering on Passover, as it contains leaven. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here this baraita is not referring to the prohibition against bringing the offering on Passover itself. Rather, we are dealing with the issue of sacrificing a thanks-offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, and this tanna maintains: One may not bring consecrated offerings to a situation where the time that they may be eaten is restricted, thereby increasing the likelihood of disqualification. Although it is permitted to eat leavened bread until the sixth hour of the fourteenth of Nisan, one may not bring a thanks-offering on Passover eve. The reason is that a thanks-offering may be eaten for one full day and the following night, and if it is brought on the eve of Passover, the time available before disqualification is reduced. And therefore, everyone who ascended on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and were obligated to bring thanks-offerings brought them on the thirteenth of Nisan. And since these thanks-offerings are numerous, they are disqualified by virtue of their being left overnight, as priests are unable to eat their portions from the loaves of all the offerings brought that day. They said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The loaves placed as an indicator were not disqualified by being left overnight. Rather, why did the tanna call them disqualified? It was due to the fact that no animal offering was slaughtered together with them to consecrate them, but they were consecrated as thanks-offering loaves independently. They could not be eaten until the offering with which they were brought was slaughtered. The Gemara asks: And let us slaughter the thanks-offering to render the loaves permitted. The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a case where the animal for the offering was lost. The Gemara raises a further difficulty: And let us bring another animal to replace the first one for sacrifice and let them slaughter it. The Gemara answers: This is a case where the one who consecrated the thanks-offering said: This is a thanks-offering and these are its loaves. He consecrated the animal and the loaves together, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, as Rabba said: If the loaf of a thanks-offering is lost, its owner brings another loaf to complete the offering. However, if the thanks-offering was lost and the loaves remain, one may not bring another thanks-offering. What is the reason for this? The loaves are brought due to the thanks-offering but the thanks-offering is not brought on account of the loaves. The animal sacrificed is the primary component of the offering while the loaves are subordinate to it. The Gemara asks: And let us redeem the loaves from their consecrated status and render them non-sacred, and there will be no need to burn the loaves. Rather, the Gemara explains that actually the case is one where the animal offering was indeed slaughtered over the loaves to permit them, but the animal’s blood spilled before it could be sprinkled on the altar. Once the animal has been slaughtered, the loaves are fully consecrated and cannot be redeemed, but in this case, neither can they be eaten, as the blood was not sprinkled on the altar. And in accordance with whose opinion is this statement that the slaughter of the animal consecrates the loaves and from that point they can no longer be redeemed? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Each of two factors that are indispensable in permitting the sacrifice of an offering, elevates the subordinate components of the offering to consecrated status, without the other. In this case, the loaves are consecrated when the animal to be sacrificed is slaughtered, even if the blood was not sprinkled, as it was taught in a baraita: The lambs sacrificed on the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot, consecrate the loaves that accompany them only by means of their slaughter. How so? If one slaughtered the lambs for their own sake, i.e., as lambs for Shavuot, in the appropriate manner, and the priest sprinkled their blood for their own sake, the loaves are consecrated. However, if one slaughtered them not for their own sake, and the priest sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are not consecrated, as the factors indispensable in rendering the offering permitted were not properly performed. If one slaughtered them for their own sake, and he sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the fact that the lambs were properly slaughtered renders the loaves partially consecrated. Therefore, the loaves are consecrated to the extent that they cannot be redeemed, but they are not consecrated to the extent that they may be eaten. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Actually, the loaves are consecrated only when one slaughters the offerings for their own sake and sprinkles their blood for their own sake, i.e., only if both factors indispensable in rendering the offering permitted were properly performed. The previous answer in the Gemara is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara adds: Even if you say that the previous answer is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, it is understood, as with what case are we dealing here? It is in a unique case where after the slaughter, the blood was received in the cup and it only then spilled before it was sprinkled. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, Rabbi Shimon, who stated a principle: The legal status of any blood that is about to be sprinkled and prepared for sprinkling is like that of blood that had already been sprinkled. Therefore, the loaves are consecrated when the blood is received in the vessel and thereby prepared to be sprinkled. They may not be eaten until the blood is actually sprinkled. It was taught in the Tosefta that they said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: These loaves were entirely fit. As long as the loaves were placed there, the entire nation continued to eat leaven. When one of the loaves was taken away, the people knew that the time had come to place the leaven in abeyance, meaning that they neither eat nor burn their leaven. When both of the loaves were taken away, they all began burning their leaven. It was taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says:

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français leur dépréciation de valeur est au taux standard des produits entreposés, en raison de la pourriture et des rongeurs. Ce…

leur dépréciation de valeur est au taux standard des produits entreposés, en raison de la pourriture et des rongeurs. Cependant, si leur dépréciation de valeur est au-delà du taux standard, tout le monde convient que on les vend en tribunal ; et à plus forte raison dans le cas ici, concernant le pain levé, comme le pain sera entièrement perdu. Une fois le levain interdit, il reste interdit même après Pessaḥ. Par conséquent, tout le monde convient que l’on est obligé de vendre le levain. Nous avons appris dans la mishna : Et en outre, Rabbi Yehouda dit : Deux pains disqualifiés d’un sacrifice de remerciement sont placés sur les piliers entourant le Temple comme indicateur. Le tanna qui récitait les mishnayot dans la salle d’étude enseigna une baraita devant Rav Yehouda : Les pains étaient placés sur [al gav] le banc dans le Temple. Il lui dit : Et a-t-il besoin de les cacher ? Personne ne les verrait s’ils étaient placés là. Plutôt, enseigne la baraita : Sur le toit de [al gag] la colonnade, où tout le monde pouvait les voir. Raḥava dit que Rabbi Yehouda dit : Le Mont du Temple était une double colonnade, c’est-à-dire entouré de deux rangées de colonnes. Cela a aussi été enseigné dans une baraita : Rabbi Yehouda dit qu’il était appelé une istevanit et c’était une colonnade dans une colonnade. Nous avons appris dans la mishna que Rabbi Yehouda dit que ces deux pains placés à l’extérieur étaient disqualifiés. La Guemara demande : Pourquoi étaient-ils disqualifiés ? Quelle a causé leur disqualification ? Rabbi Ḥanina dit : Puisque les sacrifices de remerciement apportés ce jour-là sont nombreux, et que les prêtres ne peuvent pas manger leurs portions des pains de toutes les offrandes, les pains restants sont disqualifiés en vertu du fait qu’ils sont laissés pendant la nuit. La Guemara explique que tant de pains furent apportés ce jour-là, comme il a été enseigné dans une baraita : On ne peut pas apporter un sacrifice de remerciement lors de la fête de Pessaḥ en raison du pain levé inclus avec lui, car dix des quarante pains apportés avec un sacrifice de remerciement sont des pains de pain levé. La Guemara soulève une difficulté : Il est évident que l’on ne peut pas apporter cette offrande à Pessaḥ, car elle contient du levain. Rav Adda bar Ahava dit : Ici, cette baraita ne fait pas référence à l’interdiction d’apporter le sacrifice de remerciement à Pessaḥ lui-même. Plutôt, nous avons affaire à la question de sacrifier un sacrifice de remerciement le quatorze de Nisan, et ce tanna maintient : On ne peut pas apporter des offrandes consacrées à une situation où le temps pendant lequel elles peuvent être mangées est restreint, augmentant ainsi la probabilité de disqualification. Bien qu’il soit permis de manger du pain levé jusqu’à la sixième heure du quatorze de Nisan, on ne peut pas apporter un sacrifice de remerciement la veille de Pessaḥ. La raison est qu’un sacrifice de remerciement peut être mangé pendant un jour entier et la nuit suivante, et s’il est apporté la veille de Pessaḥ, le temps disponible avant la disqualification est réduit. Et par conséquent, tous ceux qui montaient en pèlerinage à Jérusalem et étaient obligés d’apporter des sacrifices de remerciement les apportaient le treize de Nisan. Et puisque ces sacrifices de remerciement sont nombreux, ils sont disqualifiés en vertu du fait qu’ils sont laissés pendant la nuit, car les prêtres ne peuvent pas manger leurs portions des pains de toutes les offrandes apportées ce jour-là. Ils dirent au nom de Rabbi Yannaï : Les pains placés comme indicateur n’étaient pas disqualifiés par le fait d’être laissés pendant la nuit. Plutôt, pourquoi le tanna les appelait-il disqualifiés ? C’était en raison du fait qu’aucune offrande animale n’avait été abattue avec eux pour les consacrer, mais ils étaient consacrés comme pains de sacrifice de remerciement indépendamment. Ils ne pouvaient pas être mangés jusqu’à ce que l’offrande avec laquelle ils avaient été apportés soit abattue. La Guemara demande : Et abattons le sacrifice de remerciement pour rendre les pains permis. La Guemara répond : La mishna fait référence à un cas où l’animal pour l’offrande a été perdu. La Guemara soulève une difficulté supplémentaire : Et apportons un autre animal pour remplacer le premier pour le sacrifice et qu’ils l’abattent. La Guemara répond : C’est un cas où celui qui a consacré le sacrifice de remerciement a dit : Ceci est un sacrifice de remerciement et voici ses pains. Il a consacré l’animal et les pains ensemble, et ceci est conforme à l’opinion de Rabba, comme Rabba dit : Si le pain d’un sacrifice de remerciement est perdu, son propriétaire apporte un autre pain pour compléter l’offrande. Cependant, si le sacrifice de remerciement a été perdu et que les pains restent, on ne peut pas apporter un autre sacrifice de remerciement. Quelle est la raison de cela ? Les pains sont apportés en raison du sacrifice de remerciement, mais le sacrifice de remerciement n’est pas apporté à cause des pains. L’animal sacrifié est le composant principal de l’offrande tandis que les pains lui sont subordonnés. La Guemara demande : Et rachetons les pains de leur statut consacré et rendons-les non sacrés, et il n’y aura pas besoin de brûler les pains. Plutôt, la Guemara explique que en réalité le cas est un où l’offrande animale a été effectivement abattue sur les pains pour les permettre, mais le sang de l’animal s’est répandu avant qu’il ne puisse être aspergé sur l’autel. Une fois l’animal abattu, les pains sont entièrement consacrés et ne peuvent pas être rachetés, mais dans ce cas, ils ne peuvent pas non plus être mangés, car le sang n’a pas été aspergé sur l’autel. Et conformément à l’opinion de qui est cette déclaration que l’abattage de l’animal consacre les pains et qu’à partir de ce point ils [...]

📜 Pessahim — 13b

📋 Références bibliques — Pessahim 13b

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant