Temurah 12a — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 📖 Mishna Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Slaughtering a pregnant peace offering containing a non-sacred fetus is not subject to the proh…

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Slaughtering a pregnant peace offering containing a non-sacred fetus is not subject to the prohibition against slaughtering non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard. Do we read the verse: “If the place which the Lord your God shall choose to put His name there be too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:21), as applying to such a case? This verse prohibits the slaughter of non-sacred animals in the Temple, but only those that could be slaughtered elsewhere. But here, he had no choice but to slaughter the pregnant mother in the Temple, since it was a peace offering. Abaye posed the opposite dilemma to Rav Yosef: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan that fetuses can be consecrated, if one consecrated the fetus, but not its mother, as a peace offering, such that it, the mother, is non-sacred, and its offspring is a peace offering, and he slaughtered it outside the Temple courtyard as a non-sacred animal, what is the halakha? Is one liable for it due to the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside the Temple courtyard, or not? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Do we read the verse: “That they may bring them to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:5), as applying to this case? The full passage reads: “Any man of the house of Israel who shall slaughter a bull, or a lamb, or a goat…and has not brought it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting…that man shall be cut off from among his people. To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they sacrifice in the open field, even that they may bring them to the Lord, to the door of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:3–5). The passage indicates that the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside the Temple applies only to those offerings that are fit to be slaughtered inside. But this fetus is not fit to be slaughtered at all until it is born. The Gemara cites another version of this answer. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: The verse states: “And has not brought it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.” This teaches that one is liable for slaughtering an offering outside the Temple only if it is fit to come through the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, i.e., to be sacrificed in the Temple. This fetus is not yet fit. If teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, was intermingled with non-sacred produce, and it is impossible to distinguish between them, if the ratio of non-sacred produce to teruma was less than one hundred to one, the teruma is not nullified and all the produce is forbidden to those for whom teruma is forbidden. If the mixture was then intermingled with other non-sacred produce, that mixture renders it a mixture of teruma only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original teruma produce in the entire mixture. And dough that was leavened with a teruma leavening agent is forbidden to those for whom teruma is forbidden even if the ratio between the non-sacred and the teruma is greater than one hundred to one. If a portion of that dough was intermingled with non-sacred dough, it leavens only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original leavening agent in the entire dough, and the second dough is forbidden only if the quantity of the original teruma leavening agent inside it is sufficient to leaven it. And if three log of drawn water were poured into a ritual bath with less than forty se’a to complete the requisite forty se’a, the ritual bath is invalidated. But drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation, as explained in the Gemara. And the water of purification of the red heifer becomes water of purification only with the placement of the ashes into the water, but not by placement of water onto the ashes. And one beit haperas does not create another beit haperas. The Sages decreed ritual impurity on a field in which a grave was plowed, scattering the bones throughout the field. This field is called a beit haperas. That impurity extends to the area of one hundred cubits surrounding the grave. Nevertheless, they did not decree impurity on the second field if one plowed from that field into another field. And there is no teruma after teruma. Once one designates produce from his crop as teruma, if he then designates additional produce from that crop as teruma, it is not teruma. And a substitute animal that was consecrated when it was substituted for a consecrated animal does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute; rather, it remains non-sacred. And the offspring born of a consecrated animal that was not consecrated itself does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. Rabbi Yehuda says: The offspring renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. The Sages said to him: A consecrated animal renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, but the offspring does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute.

▶ 💬 Guemara The mishna teaches that if a mixture of teruma produce and non-sacred produce was intermingled with other non-sacred pro…

The mishna teaches that if a mixture of teruma produce and non-sacred produce was intermingled with other non-sacred produce, that mixture is prohibited only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original teruma produce in the entire mixture. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is reflected in this ruling? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 5:6): If a se’a of teruma fell into less than one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce and thereby caused it to become a prohibited mixture, since the amount of teruma is too great to be nullified by the non-sacred produce, and a se’a from the mixture subsequently fell into a different place with non-sacred produce, Rabbi Eliezer says: The se’a from the original mixture renders it a prohibited mixture as definite teruma would, in the same ratio, since I say: It is possible that the same se’a of teruma that fell into the first mixture was not mixed evenly throughout, and it all came out of it intact and fell into the second mixture. Therefore, it requires nullification as if it were unadulterated teruma. And the Rabbis say: The se’a from the original prohibited mixture renders the derivative mixture prohibited only according to the calculation of actual teruma in the entire mixture, calculated as if the teruma were evenly distributed throughout the first mixture. The mishna evidently follows the opinion of the Rabbis. § The mishna teaches: And if a portion of dough that was leavened with a teruma leavening agent was intermingled with non-sacred dough, it leavens only according to the calculation. Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As we learned in a mishna (Orla 2:11): In a case of non-sacred leaven and leaven of teruma that fell together into a non-sacred batch of dough, and this one alone was not potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, and that one alone was not potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, and they combined and caused the dough to become leavened, Rabbi Eliezer says: I follow the final element to fall into the dough. If the teruma fell in last, the dough is prohibited to non-priests. And the Rabbis say: Whether the forbidden item, i.e., the teruma, fell in first or the forbidden item fell in last, it is prohibited only if there is enough of the prohibited leaven itself to cause the dough to leaven. § The mishna further teaches: And drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is reflected in this ruling? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, as we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Mikvaot 4:3) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: If a ritual bath contains twenty-one se’a of rainwater, the majority of a valid ritual bath of forty se’a, what can one do to render it valid? One fills drawn water in a bucket carried on the shoulder in the amount of nineteen se’a, and with it fills a pit adjacent to the ritual bath, and one lets the water flow [ufotekan] through a passage from the pit into the ritual bath,

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français La mishna enseigne que si un mélange de produits de teruma et de produits non sacrés a été mêlé à d’autres produits non …

La mishna enseigne que si un mélange de produits de teruma et de produits non sacrés a été mêlé à d’autres produits non sacrés, ce mélange n’est interdit que selon le calcul du pourcentage de teruma original dans tout le mélange. La Guemara demande : Quel est le tanna dont l’opinion est reflétée dans cette décision ? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba dit que Rabbi Yoḥanan a dit : Cette décision n’est pas conforme à l’opinion de Rabbi Eliezer. Comme nous l’avons appris dans une mishna (Terumot 5:6) : Si un se’a de teruma est tombé dans moins de cent se’a de produits non sacrés et les a ainsi rendus un mélange interdit, puisque la quantité de teruma est trop grande pour être annulée par les produits non sacrés, et qu’un se’a de ce mélange est ensuite tombé dans un autre endroit avec des produits non sacrés, Rabbi Eliezer dit : Le se’a du mélange original le rend un mélange interdit comme le ferait du teruma certain, dans la même proportion, car je dis : Il est possible que le même se’a de teruma qui est tombé dans le premier mélange n’ait pas été réparti uniformément, et qu’il en soit sorti intact et soit tombé dans le second mélange. Par conséquent, il nécessite une annulation comme s’il s’agissait de teruma pur. Et les Rabbins disent : Le se’a du mélange interdit original rend le mélange dérivé interdit seulement selon le calcul du teruma réel dans tout le mélange, calculé comme si le teruma était réparti uniformément dans le premier mélange. La mishna suit évidemment l’opinion des Rabbins. § La mishna enseigne : Et si une portion de pâte qui avait été levée avec un agent levant de teruma a été mêlée à de la pâte non sacrée, elle ne fait lever que selon le calcul. Rabbi Abba dit que Rabbi Yoḥanan a dit : La mishna n’est pas conforme à l’opinion de Rabbi Eliezer. Comme nous l’avons appris dans une mishna (Orla 2:11) : Dans le cas de levain non sacré et de levain de teruma qui sont tombés ensemble dans une fournée de pâte non sacrée, et que celui-ci seul n’avait pas assez de force pour faire lever la pâte, et que celui-là seul n’avait pas assez de force pour faire lever la pâte, et qu’ils se sont combinés et ont fait lever la pâte, Rabbi Eliezer dit : Je suis le dernier élément à tomber dans la pâte. Si le teruma est tombé en dernier, la pâte est interdite aux non-prêtres. Et les Rabbins disent : Que l’objet interdit, c’est-à-dire le teruma, soit tombé en premier ou que l’objet interdit soit tombé en dernier, il n’est interdit que s’il y a assez du levain interdit lui-même pour faire lever la pâte. § La mishna enseigne en outre : Et l’eau puisée n’invalide le bain rituel que selon le calcul. La Guemara demande : Quel est le tanna dont l’opinion est reflétée dans cette décision ? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba dit que Rabbi Yoḥanan dit : C’est Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, comme nous l’avons appris dans une baraita (Tosefta, Mikvaot 4:3) que Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov dit : Si un bain rituel contient vingt et un se’a d’eau de pluie, la majorité d’un bain rituel valide de quarante se’a, que peut-on faire pour le rendre valide ? On remplit de l’eau puisée dans un seau porté sur l’épaule à raison de dix-neuf se’a, et avec cela on remplit une fosse adjacente au bain rituel, et on laisse l’eau s’écouler [ufotekan] par un passage de la fosse dans le bain rituel,

📜 Temurah — 12a

📋 Références bibliques — Temurah 12a

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant