Pessahim 14a — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 📖 Mishna Two cows would plow on the Mount of Olives on Passover eve. As long as both of them are plowing, the entire nation conti…

Two cows would plow on the Mount of Olives on Passover eve. As long as both of them are plowing, the entire nation continues to eat leavened bread. When one of the cows is taken away, the people know that the time has come to place their leaven in abeyance, meaning that they neither eat nor burn it. When both of them were taken away, the entire nation began burning their leaven. Apropos the removal of leaven on Passover eve, including the consecrated loaves of thanks-offerings and teruma, the mishna cites a related halakha. Rabbi Ḥanina the deputy High Priest says: In all the days of the priests, they did not refrain from burning meat that became ritually impure by coming into contact with a secondary source of ritual impurity, i.e., an object that had come into contact with a primary source of impurity, together with meat that became ritually impure by contact with a primary source of impurity. They would do so even though they would thereby add a degree of impurity to the impurity of the first piece of meat, which was previously impure to a lesser degree. Rabbi Akiva added to the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina the deputy High Priest and said: In all the days of the priests, they did not refrain from lighting teruma oil that was ritually disqualified by coming into contact with one who immersed himself during that day and who does not become completely purified until nightfall in a lamp that became ritually impure with first-degree impurity through contact with one who became ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. They did so even though they would thereby add impurity to the impurity of the oil. A person who immersed himself during that day assumes the status of second-degree ritual impurity. His contact renders the oil ritually impure with third-degree ritual impurity. The lamp with first-degree ritual impurity renders the oil ritually impure with second-degree impurity. Rabbi Meir said: From their statements we learned that one may burn ritually pure teruma with impure teruma when removing leaven on Passover eve. The rationale that applies to the two previous cases applies here as well. Since both items are being burned, one may disregard the fact that one item will assume a higher degree of ritual impurity in the process. Rabbi Yosei said: That is not the inference from which the halakha in the case of ritually pure and ritually impure teruma can be learned. In those first two cases, the two items are both ritually impure, albeit at different degrees of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir is referring to the combination of impure teruma with pure teruma, which would render pure teruma ritually impure. And in fact Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, who disagree with regard to the burning of leavened teruma, nevertheless concede that one burns this ritually pure teruma by itself and that impure teruma by itself. With regard to what did they disagree? They disagreed with regard to whether one may burn teruma in abeyance, i.e., teruma whose purity is uncertain, and definitely impure teruma together, as Rabbi Eliezer says: This teruma in abeyance should be burned by itself, and that impure teruma should be burned by itself; and Rabbi Yehoshua says: In that case, both of them may be burned as one.

▶ 💬 Guemara The Gemara analyzes the mishna’s first statement: Now consider, what is the status of meat that became ritually impure b…

The Gemara analyzes the mishna’s first statement: Now consider, what is the status of meat that became ritually impure by coming into contact with a secondary source of impurity? It assumes second-degree ritual impurity status. When one burns that meat together with meat that became ritually impure by coming into contact with a primary source of ritual impurity, what is the status of that first piece of meat? It assumes second-degree ritual impurity status. Meat that touches a primary source of impurity assumes first-degree ritual impurity status, which transmits second-degree impurity to other meat. The Gemara continues: Since when the first piece of meat is placed next to the meat that came into contact with a primary source it assumes second-degree impurity, this is a case where the meat is with second-degree status, and through contact with the primary source it would assume second-degree status. In what sense is there a case of adding impurity to its impurity here? There is no change in the status of the first piece of meat at all. Rav Yehuda said: The above interpretation is incorrect, as here we are dealing with the secondary source of a secondary source of ritual impurity, i.e., meat that came in contact with second-degree ritual impurity. The statement in the mishna: That became ritually impure by coming into contact with a secondary source of ritual impurity, should not be understood as saying that it came into contact with meat with first-degree ritual impurity status, as in this case, the meat came into contact with meat with second-degree ritual impurity status and is impure with third-degree ritual impurity. And Rabbi Ḥanina the deputy High Priest maintains that it is permitted to render impure with second-degree impurity an object with third-degree ritual impurity by burning it with meat that came into contact with a primary source of ritual impurity. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn’t there a principle that food does not transmit ritual impurity to other food, as it was taught in a baraita: I might have thought that food transmits impurity to other food; therefore, the verse states: “And if water is placed upon the seed, and any part of a carcass falls upon it, it is impure” (Leviticus 11:38). The Sages derived from this verse: It, the food exposed to the source of impurity, is impure, but it does not render similar foods impure. Apparently, food does not transmit impurity to other food. This works out well according to the opinion of Abaye, who said: They taught this principle that food does not transmit ritual impurity to other food only with regard to non-sacred food; however, with regard to teruma and consecrated food, food transmits impurity to other foods it touches, and it renders the teruma or consecrated food similar to it in terms of impurity. And this is also the case according to the opinion stated by Rav Adda bar Ahava in the name of Rava, who said: They taught this principle, that food does not transmit ritual impurity to other food, only with regard to non-sacred food and teruma; however, with regard to consecrated food, food transmits impurity to other foods it touches, and it renders the consecrated food similar to it in terms of impurity. According to this opinion, it works out well. As the mishna is dealing with a case of consecrated meat, impurity can be transmitted from one food item to another. However, this is not the case according to the opinion stated by Ravina in the name of Rava, who said: The Torah stated this principle in a categorical verse, without any exceptions, meaning it is no different with regard to non-sacred food, and it is no different with regard to teruma, and it is no different with regard to consecrated food, as in all of these cases one type of food does not render other food similar to it in terms of impurity. According to this opinion, what can be said in terms of understanding the statement in the mishna: Even though they thereby add impurity to its impurity? The Gemara answers in defense of this opinion: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where there are liquids with the meat when it comes into contact with the primary source of ritual impurity. Since the other piece of meat comes into contact with the liquid on that meat, it becomes impure due to contact with the liquid. Although food does not transmit impurity to food, liquid transmits impurity to food. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, this phrase: With meat that became ritually impure by contact with a primary source of impurity, is imprecise. The tanna should have said: With meat and liquids, as the liquids are essential for the transmission of impurity. Rather, the Gemara explains: Although food does not transmit impurity to other food by Torah law, in any event, by rabbinic law, food transmits impurity to other food. The mishna is based on the rabbinic decree that food transmits impurity to other food. It was stated in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva added: In all the days of the priests, they did not refrain from lighting teruma oil that was ritually disqualified by coming into contact with one who immersed himself during that day, in a lamp that was rendered ritually impure with first-degree impurity through contact with one who became ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. The Gemara asks: Now consider, what is the status of oil that was disqualified by one who immersed himself during that day? As one who immersed himself during that day assumes second-degree impurity, the oil that he touches assumes third-degree ritual impurity status. And when he lights it in a lamp that was rendered ritually impure through contact with one who became ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, who has first-degree impurity status, what is the impurity status of the oil? It assumes second-degree ritual impurity status. If so, what is Rabbi Akiva teaching us by this halakha? This statement apparently teaches us that with regard to an object that is ritually impure with third-degree impurity status, it is permitted to render it impure with second-degree impurity status. Yet this is the same halakha as that which was taught by Rabbi Ḥanina the deputy High Priest. What is novel about the halakha taught by Rabbi Akiva? Rav Yehuda said: Here, we are dealing with a metal lamp, which has a unique halakhic status. As the Merciful One states:

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français La Guemara analyse la première déclaration de la mishna : Maintenant considérez, quel est le statut de la viande qui est…

La Guemara analyse la première déclaration de la mishna : Maintenant considérez, quel est le statut de la viande qui est devenue rituellement impure par contact avec une source secondaire d’impureté ? Elle assume un statut d’impureté rituelle de deuxième degré. Lorsqu’on brûle cette viande ensemble avec de la viande qui est devenue rituellement impure par contact avec une source primaire d’impureté rituelle, quel est le statut de ce premier morceau de viande ? Il assume un statut d’impureté rituelle de deuxième degré. La viande qui touche une source primaire d’impureté assume un statut d’impureté rituelle de premier degré, qui transmet une impureté de deuxième degré à une autre viande. La Guemara poursuit : Puisque lorsque le premier morceau de viande est placé à côté de la viande qui est entrée en contact avec une source primaire, il assume une impureté de deuxième degré, ceci est un cas où la viande a un statut de deuxième degré, et par contact avec la source primaire, elle assumerait un statut de deuxième degré. En quel sens y a-t-il ici un cas d’ajout d’impureté à son impureté ? Il n’y a aucun changement dans le statut du premier morceau de viande du tout. Rav Yehuda a dit : L’interprétation ci-dessus est incorrecte, car ici nous avons affaire à la source secondaire d’une source secondaire d’impureté rituelle, c’est-à-dire de la viande qui est entrée en contact avec une impureté rituelle de deuxième degré. La déclaration dans la mishna : Qui est devenue rituellement impure par contact avec une source secondaire d’impureté rituelle, ne doit pas être comprise comme disant qu’elle est entrée en contact avec de la viande ayant un statut d’impureté rituelle de premier degré, car dans ce cas, la viande est entrée en contact avec de la viande ayant un statut d’impureté rituelle de deuxième degré et est impure avec une impureté rituelle de troisième degré. Et Rabbi Ḥanina le grand prêtre adjoint maintient qu’il est permis de rendre impur avec une impureté de deuxième degré un objet ayant une impureté rituelle de troisième degré en le brûlant avec de la viande qui est entrée en contact avec une source primaire d’impureté rituelle. La Guemara soulève une difficulté : N’y a-t-il pas un principe selon lequel la nourriture ne transmet pas l’impureté rituelle à une autre nourriture, comme il a été enseigné dans une baraita : Je pourrais avoir pensé que la nourriture transmet l’impureté à une autre nourriture ; c’est pourquoi le verset dit : « Et si de l’eau est mise sur la semence, et qu’une partie d’une carcasse tombe dessus, elle est impure » (Lévitique 11:38). Les Sages ont dérivé de ce verset : Elle, la nourriture exposée à la source d’impureté, est impure, mais elle ne rend pas des nourritures similaires impures. Apparemment, la nourriture ne transmet pas l’impureté à une autre nourriture. Ceci fonctionne bien selon l’opinion d’Abaye, qui a dit : Ils ont enseigné ce principe selon lequel la nourriture ne transmet pas l’impureté rituelle à une autre nourriture uniquement en ce qui concerne la nourriture non sacrée ; cependant, en ce qui concerne la teruma et la nourriture consacrée, la nourriture transmet l’impureté aux autres nourritures qu’elle touche, et elle rend la teruma ou la nourriture consacrée similaire à elle en termes d’impureté. Et c’est aussi le cas selon l’opinion énoncée par Rav Adda bar Ahava au nom de Rava, qui a dit : Ils ont enseigné ce principe, selon lequel la nourriture ne transmet pas l’impureté rituelle à une autre nourriture, uniquement en ce qui concerne la nourriture non sacrée et la teruma ; cependant, en ce qui concerne la nourriture consacrée, la nourriture transmet l’impureté aux autres nourritures qu’elle touche, et elle rend la nourriture consacrée similaire à elle en termes d’impureté. Selon cette opinion, cela fonctionne bien. Comme la mishna traite d’un cas de viande consacrée, l’impureté peut être transmise d’un aliment à un autre. Cependant, ce n’est pas le cas selon l’opinion énoncée par Ravina au nom de Rava, qui a dit : La Torah a énoncé ce principe dans un verset catégorique, sans aucune exception, ce qui signifie qu’il n’y a pas de différence en ce qui concerne la nourriture non sacrée, et il n’y a pas de différence en ce qui concerne la teruma, et il n’y a pas de différence en ce qui concerne la nourriture consacrée, car dans tous ces cas, un type de nourriture ne rend pas une autre nourriture similaire à elle en termes d’impureté. Selon cette opinion, que peut-on dire pour comprendre la déclaration dans la mishna : Même s’ils ajoutent ainsi une impureté à son impureté ? La Guemara répond en défense de cette opinion : De quoi s’agit-il ici ? Il s’agit d’un cas où il y a des liquides avec la viande lorsqu’elle entre en contact avec la source primaire d’impureté rituelle. Puisque l’autre morceau de viande entre en contact avec le liquide sur cette viande, il devient impur en raison du contact avec le liquide. Bien que la nourriture ne transmette pas l’impureté à la nourriture, le liquide transmet l’impureté à la nourriture. La Guemara soulève une difficulté : Si c’est le cas, cette phrase : Avec de la viande qui est devenue rituellement impure par contact avec une source primaire d’impureté, est imprécise. Le tanna aurait dû dire : Avec de la viande et des liquides, car les liquides sont essentiels pour la transmission de l’impureté. Plutôt, la Guemara explique : Bien que la nourriture ne transmette pas l’impureté à une autre nourriture par la loi de la Torah, en tout cas, par la loi rabbinique, la nourriture transmet l’impureté à une autre nourriture. La mishna est basée sur le décret rabbinique selon lequel la nourriture transmet l’impureté à une autre nourriture. Il a été déclaré dans la mishna que Rabbi Akiva a ajouté : Dans tous les jours des prêtres, ils ne se sont pas abstenus d’allumer de l’huile de teruma qui était rituellement disqualifiée par contact avec celui qui s’est immergé ce jour-là, dans une lampe qui avait été rendue rituellement impure avec une impureté de premier degré par contact avec celui qui était devenu rituellement impur avec une impureté impartie par un cadavre. La Guemara demande : Maintenant considérez [...]

📜 Pessahim — 14a

📋 Références bibliques — Pessahim 14a

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant