Pessahim 7b — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 💬 Guemara Where they disagree is with regard to the formula: Concerning the elimination of leaven. One Sage, Rav Pappi, maintains …

Where they disagree is with regard to the formula: Concerning the elimination of leaven. One Sage, Rav Pappi, maintains that it is referring to an act that was performed previously. Since this formula is referring to the removal of leaven as a task already completed, it would be more appropriate for a blessing recited after performance of that mitzva was completed. And the other Sage, Rav Pappa, maintains that this expression refers to the future. The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappi’s opinion from the formula of the blessing recited just prior to circumcision: Blessed are You…Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us concerning circumcision. Apparently this expression indeed is referring to a future act. The Gemara rejects this contention: That is no proof, as what alternative formula can we recite there? If we say: He, Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and commanded us to circumcise, is there no alternative to he himself, i.e., the boy’s father, circumcising his son? The father is commanded to circumcise his son, and he may appoint one who is not commanded to circumcise his son to act in his stead. Therefore, the more general formula of the blessing is recited: About the circumcision. The Gemara raises a difficulty: In a case where the child’s father himself circumcises his son, what can be said? The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so. If the father himself performs the circumcision he in fact recites the blessing: And has commanded us to circumcise. The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappi’s opinion. The blessing recited over ritual slaughter is: Blessed…Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us concerning slaughtering. This blessing likewise indicates that this formula is appropriate prior to an action. The Gemara again rejects this claim: There too, what alternative formula can we recite? If we say: Who has commanded us to slaughter, is there no alternative to his slaughtering the animal? There is no mitzva to slaughter an animal. It is merely the necessary preparation before one may eat meat. Therefore, the more general formula of the blessing is recited: Concerning slaughtering. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, with regard to the slaughter of the Paschal lamb and other consecrated animals, what can be said? One is indeed commanded to slaughter these animals. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. When slaughtering the Paschal lamb or any other offering, one recites: Who has commanded us to slaughter. The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappi’s opinion from the Tosefta: One who prepares a lulav for himself recites the blessing: Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. When he takes it to fulfill with it the obligation to take the lulav, he says: Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us concerning the taking of the lulav. Although he has yet to perform the mitzva, he does not recite the formula: To take. The Gemara answers: It is different there, as at the time when he lifts the lulav before he recites the blessing, he already fulfilled his obligation by Torah law. Consequently, the formula: Concerning the taking, is indeed more appropriate for an action that he has already performed. The Gemara raises an objection: If so, the statement that he takes it to fulfill his obligation with it is imprecise, as the tanna should have said that he took the lulav with which he already fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; the tanna should have formulated the halakha in that manner. But due to the fact that he wants to teach the latter clause of the baraita: One who comes to sit in the sukka, he likewise taught in the first clause: To fulfill his obligation with it. This phrase maintains the consistency of the language of the Tosefta, even though it is imprecise with regard to the halakha of lulav. As it teaches in the latter clause of this baraita: One who erects a sukka for himself recites: Blessed are You, God, Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. When he enters to sit in the sukka he says: Blessed…Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us to sit in the sukka. In summary, no conclusive proof has been found for either side of this debate. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that one should recite: Concerning the removal of leaven, as that expression is referring to the future as well. The Gemara poses a question: In any event, it is clear from the previous discussion that everyone agrees that one is required to recite a blessing prior to performing a mitzva. From where do we derive this principle? It is as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to all the mitzvot, one recites a blessing over them prior to [over] their performance. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that the word over is the language of priority? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that the verse said: “And Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain, and overran [vaya’avor] the Cushite” (II Samuel 18:23), i.e., Ahimaaz overtook the Cushite. Abaye said: It is derived from here: “And he passed [avar] before them” (Genesis 33:3). And if you wish, say instead that the proof is from here: “And their king passed [vaya’avor] before them and God at their head” (Micah 2:13). In the school of Rav they say: One recites a blessing prior to performing all mitzvot, except for the ritual immersion after a nocturnal emission and the blowing of the shofar. The Gemara elaborates: Granted one does not recite a blessing prior to immersion, as this man who has not yet immersed is still unfit to recite a blessing because he is ritually impure. However, with regard to a shofar, what is the reason that one does not recite a blessing before sounding the shofar? And lest you say the reason is due to a concern lest the sounding of the shofar emerge flawed, and the blessing will be in vain, if so, one should not recite a blessing even prior to ritual slaughter and circumcision, as in those cases too one might fail to perform the action in the requisite manner. Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: Except for prior to immersion alone was stated, due to the aforementioned reason. The Gemara adds: That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who immersed for ritual purification after a nocturnal emission and emerged, as he emerges he recites: Blessed…Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and commanded us concerning immersion. The mishna states that one searches for leaven by the light of the lamp, etc. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, i.e., that the search should be conducted by the light of the lamp, derived? Rav Ḥisda said: We derive it by the hermeneutic principles of verbal analogy and juxtaposition: The term finding in one context is derived from finding in another context, and finding is derived from the word searching, and this searching is derived from searching elsewhere, and searching there is derived from the word lamps, and lamps is derived from lamp. The Gemara cites the relevant verses included in the above derivation. Finding in one context is derived from finding in another context by verbal analogy, as it is written here: “Seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses” (Exodus 12:19), and it is written there: “And he searched, starting with the eldest, and ending with the youngest; and the goblet was found in Benjamin’s sack” (Genesis 44:12). And the word finding in this verse is connected to searching in that same verse by juxtaposition, as the verse says: “And he searched... and was found.” And searching is derived from lamps by means of juxtaposition, as it is written: “And it shall come to pass that at that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps” (Zephaniah 1:12). And finally, the word lamps is derived from lamp by means of juxtaposition, as it is written: “The spirit of man is the lamp of God, searching all the inward parts” (Proverbs 20:27). Together these verses indicate that the search for leaven must be conducted by the light of the lamp. Similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: On the night of the fourteenth one searches for leavened bread by the light of the lamp. Although there is no absolute proof for this matter, there is an allusion to this matter, as it is stated: “Seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses,” and it says: “And he searched, starting with the eldest, and ending with the youngest; and the goblet was found.” And it says: “At that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps,” and it says: “The spirit of man is the lamp of God, searching all the inward parts.” With regard to this teaching, the Gemara asks a question: What is the reason for the last citation introduced by the final And the verse says? Why doesn’t the previous verse, “At that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps,” provide sufficient proof that the search must be conducted by the light of the lamp? And the Gemara answers: The last verse is necessary, lest you say that this verse: “At that time, etc.” is a leniency, as God is saying: I will not search Jerusalem by the light of a torch, whose light is great, and through which I will expose every sin. Rather, I will search by the light of a small lamp, whose light is smaller, which will ensure that great sins will be discovered and small sins will not be discovered. To counter this argument, the tanna states: Come and hear, “The spirit of man is the lamp of God, searching all the inward parts.” This verse indicates that everything will be found by the light of the lamp, which is the most effective manner of searching. The Sages taught: One does not search for leaven, neither by the light of the sun, nor by the light of the moon, nor by the light of a torch. Rather, the search should be conducted by the light of a lamp,

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français Où ils sont en désaccord, c'est en ce qui concerne la formule : Sur l'élimination du levain. Un Sage, Rav Pappi, maintie…

Où ils sont en désaccord, c'est en ce qui concerne la formule : Sur l'élimination du levain. Un Sage, Rav Pappi, maintient que elle se réfère à un acte accompli précédemment. Puisque cette formule se réfère à l'élimination du levain comme à une tâche déjà accomplie, elle conviendrait mieux à une bénédiction récitée après l'accomplissement de cette mitsva. Et l'autre Sage, Rav Pappa, maintient que cette expression se réfère à l'avenir. La Guemara soulève une objection à l'opinion de Rav Pappi à partir de la formule de la bénédiction récitée juste avant la circoncision : Béni sois-Tu… Qui nous a sanctifiés par Ses mitsvot et nous a ordonné concernant la circoncision. Apparemment, cette expression se réfère effectivement à un acte futur. La Guemara rejette cette affirmation : Ce n'est pas une preuve, car quelle formule alternative pouvons-nous réciter là ? Si nous disons : Lui, Qui nous a sanctifiés par Ses mitsvot et nous a ordonné de circoncire, n'y a-t-il pas d'alternative à ce que lui lui-même, c'est-à-dire le père de l'enfant, circoncise son fils ? Le père est commandé de circoncire son fils, et il peut nommer quelqu'un qui n'est pas commandé de circoncire son fils pour agir à sa place. Par conséquent, la formule plus générale de la bénédiction est récitée : Sur la circoncision. La Guemara soulève une difficulté : Dans un cas où le père de l'enfant lui-même circoncit son fils, que peut-on dire ? La Guemara répond : Oui, il en est effectivement ainsi. Si le père lui-même accomplit la circoncision, il récite en fait la bénédiction : Et nous a ordonné de circoncire. La Guemara soulève une objection à l'opinion de Rav Pappi. La bénédiction récitée sur l'abattage rituel est : Béni… Qui nous a sanctifiés par Ses mitsvot et nous a ordonné concernant l'abattage. Cette bénédiction indique également que cette formule convient avant une action. La Guemara rejette encore cette affirmation : Là aussi, quelle formule alternative pouvons-nous réciter ? Si nous disons : Qui nous a ordonné d'abattre, n'y a-t-il pas d'alternative à son abattage de l'animal ? Il n'y a pas de mitsva d'abattre un animal. C'est simplement la préparation nécessaire avant de pouvoir manger de la viande. Par conséquent, la formule plus générale de la bénédiction est récitée : Concernant l'abattage. La Guemara soulève une difficulté : Si c'est le cas, en ce qui concerne l'abattage de l'agneau pascal et des autres animaux consacrés, que peut-on dire ? On est effectivement commandé d'abattre ces animaux. La Guemara répond : Oui, il en est effectivement ainsi. Lors de l'abattage de l'agneau pascal ou de toute autre offrande, on récite : Qui nous a ordonné d'abattre. La Guemara soulève une objection à l'opinion de Rav Pappi à partir de la Tossefta : Celui qui prépare un loulav pour lui-même récite la bénédiction : Qui nous a donné la vie, nous a soutenus et nous a amenés à ce moment. Lorsqu'il le prend pour accomplir avec lui l'obligation de prendre le loulav, il dit : Qui nous a sanctifiés par Ses mitsvot et nous a ordonné concernant la prise du loulav. Bien qu'il n'ait pas encore accompli la mitsva, il ne récite pas la formule : De prendre. La Guemara répond : C'est différent là, car au moment où il soulève le loulav avant de réciter la bénédiction, il a déjà accompli son obligation selon la loi de la Torah. Par conséquent, la formule : Concernant la prise, est effectivement plus appropriée pour une action qu'il a déjà accomplie. La Guemara soulève une objection : Si c'est le cas, la déclaration qu'il le prend pour accomplir son obligation avec lui est imprécise, car le tanna aurait dû dire qu'il a pris le loulav avec lequel il a déjà accompli son obligation. La Guemara répond : Oui, il en est effectivement ainsi ; le tanna aurait dû formuler la halakha de cette manière. Mais en raison du fait qu'il veut enseigner la dernière clause de la baraita : Celui qui vient s'asseoir dans la souka, il a également enseigné dans la première clause : Pour accomplir son obligation avec lui. Cette phrase maintient la cohérence du langage de la Tossefta, même si elle est imprécise en ce qui concerne la halakha du loulav. Comme il est enseigné dans la dernière clause de cette baraita : Celui qui érige une souka pour lui-même récite : Béni sois-Tu, Dieu, Qui nous a donné la vie, nous a soutenus et nous a amenés à ce moment. Lorsqu'il entre pour s'asseoir dans la souka il dit : Béni… Qui nous a sanctifiés par Ses mitsvot et nous a ordonné de nous asseoir dans la souka. En résumé, aucune preuve concluante n'a été trouvée pour aucun des deux côtés de ce débat. La Guemara conclut : Et la halakha est que l'on doit réciter : Sur l'élimination du levain, car cette expression se réfère également à l'avenir. La Guemara pose une question : En tout état de cause, il est clair de la discussion précédente que tout le monde est d'accord que l'on est tenu de réciter une bénédiction avant d'accomplir une mitsva. D'où tirons-nous ce principe ? C'est comme Rav Yehouda a dit que Shmuel a dit : En ce qui concerne toutes les mitsvot, on récite une bénédiction sur elles avant [over] leur accomplissement. La Guemara demande : D'où peut-on déduire que le mot over est le langage de la priorité ? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak a dit que le verset a dit : « Et Ahimaatz courut par le chemin de la plaine, et il dépassa [vaya’avor] le Cushite » (II Samuel 18:23), c'est-à-dire qu'Ahimaatz a dépassé le Cushite. Abaye a dit : Cela est dérivé d'ici : « Et il passa [avar] devant eux » (Genèse 33:3). Et si tu veux, dis plutôt que la preuve est d'ici : « Et leur roi passa [vaya’avor] devant eux et Dieu à leur tête » (Michée 2:13). Dans l'école [...]

📜 Pessahim — 7b

📋 Références bibliques — Pessahim 7b

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant