Zeva'him 11b — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 📖 Mishna Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: This inference is not valid, as we find that a leftover sin offering, e.g., one bought with …

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: This inference is not valid, as we find that a leftover sin offering, e.g., one bought with money left over from funds dedicated to the acquisition of a sin offering, is brought as a burnt offering, whereas a leftover burnt offering is not brought as a sin offering. And according to Rabbi Eliezer’s logic, one should derive a fortiori: Just as with regard to a sin offering, whose leftover is brought as a burnt offering, nevertheless, if one slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt offering it is unfit, so too, with regard to a burnt offering, whose leftover is not brought as a sin offering, if one slaughtered it for the sake of a sin offering, isn’t it logical that it should be unfit? Yet, the halakha is that a burnt offering slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering is fit. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: No, if you said that this is the halakha with regard to a sin offering, that another offering sacrificed for its sake is fit, this is only because a sin offering is fit when sacrificed for its sake all year long. Shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to a Paschal offering, which is fit when sacrificed for its sake only at its designated time? Since a Paschal offering is unfit when sacrificed for its sake during the rest of the year, it is logical that other offerings should be disqualified when sacrificed for its sake at its designated time. § The mishna teaches: Shimon, brother of Azarya, says that this is the distinction: With regard to all offerings, if one slaughtered them for the sake of an offering whose sanctity is greater than theirs, they are fit; if one slaughtered them for the sake of an offering whose sanctity is less than theirs, they are unfit. Rav Ashi teaches in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, teaches the same statement in the name of Rabbi Yannai: What is the reason for the opinion of Shimon, brother of Azarya? It is derived from that which the verse states: “And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they will set apart [yarimu] unto the Lord” (Leviticus 22:15). The verse is interpreted not as a prohibition but as a halakhic axiom, teaching that offerings are not profaned, i.e., disqualified, by sacrifice for the sake of offerings whose sanctity is more elevated [muram] than theirs; they are profaned only by sacrifice for the sake of offerings whose sanctity is less than theirs. The Gemara asks: And does that verse come to teach this halakha? But isn’t it necessary for Shmuel’s derivation? As Shmuel says: From where is it derived that one who eats untithed produce is liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven? As it is stated: “And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they will set apart unto the Lord.” The term: “Will set apart,” indicates that the verse is speaking of holy items that are to be set apart in the future, i.e., untithed produce, which includes the portion designated for the priest [teruma]. The Gemara answers: If so, if the verse taught only one halakha, the halakha of Shimon, brother of Azarya, it should have written: Which they have set apart. What is the reason the verse states: “Which they will set apart,” in the future tense? Conclude from it that the verse teaches two halakhot: An offering sacrificed for the sake of an offering of greater sanctity is fit, and consumption of untithed produce is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: According to Shimon, brother of Azaria, who says that less sacred offerings sacrificed for the sake of more sacred offerings are fit, perhaps they are fit but do not propitiate God, i.e., they do not fulfill the owner’s obligation, as the Rabbis hold. If so, when Shimon, brother of Azaria, disagrees with the first tanna in the mishna, he disagrees only with regard to one matter, i.e., that more sacred offerings sacrificed for the sake of less sacred ones are disqualified altogether. Alternatively, perhaps Shimon, brother of Azaria, holds that if less sacred offerings are sacrificed for the sake of more sacred offerings they are both fit and propitiate God, and they disagree with the Rabbis about two matters. Abaye, and some say Rabbi Zerika, said: Come and hear proof that they do not satisfy the owners’ obligation: Shimon, brother of Azarya, elaborated on his opinion in the mishna: A firstborn animal and the animal tithe that one slaughtered for the sake of peace offerings are fit, as the sanctity of peace offerings is greater. Peace offerings that one slaughtered for the sake of a firstborn animal or for the sake of the animal tithe are unfit. And if it enters your mind that offerings sacrificed for the sake of offerings of greater sanctity are both fit and propitiate God, is a firstborn an offering that propitiates? Sacrificing a firstborn does not serve to propitiate God; rather, conclude that such offerings are fit but do not propitiate. And one can infer that since in the latter clause they are fit but do not propitiate, in the former clause as well, concerning all offerings of lesser sanctity slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order, they are fit but do not propitiate. The Gemara responds: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. Perhaps Shimon, brother of Azarya, holds that offerings of lesser sanctity slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order propitiate God, but a firstborn animal and animal tithe slaughtered for the sake of peace offerings do not propitiate God. The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the latter clause concerning a firstborn and animal tithe teaching us, if not that no offerings of lesser sanctity propitiate God when sacrificed for the sake of offerings of greater sanctity? How is the clause not redundant? Does it teach us an example of offerings of higher sanctity and offerings of lower sanctity? We already learn such an example in the former clause, which teaches: How so? Offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity are unfit; offerings of lesser sanctity slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order are fit. The Gemara answers: It is stated lest you say that the halakha of offerings of higher sanctity and offerings of lower sanctity applies only when the difference is between offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, but with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity and other offerings of lesser sanctity this halakha does not apply, as they are all considered to possess the same level of sanctity. Therefore the mishna adds the example of a firstborn animal and animal tithe slaughtered for the sake of peace offerings, to clarify that one can distinguish between different offerings of lesser sanctity as well. The Gemara raises an objection to this answer: We already learn this as well, in another mishna (89a): The peace offering precedes sacrifice of the firstborn because the peace offering requires placement of its blood twice so as to be visible on four sides of the altar, placing hands on the head of the offering, libations, and waving of the breast and thigh by the priest and the owner, none of which is required for the firstborn. The Gemara answers: The primary mention of the distinction is in this mishna; that mishna cites it incidentally, in discussing the order of precedence of offerings. With regard to the Paschal offering that one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan, the day when the Paschal offering should be slaughtered in the afternoon, if he did so not for its sake, Rabbi Yehoshua deems it fit as though it were slaughtered on the thirteenth of Nisan. An animal consecrated as a Paschal offering that was slaughtered not at its designated time for the sake of a different offering is fit for sacrifice as a peace offering. Ben Beteira deems it unfit as though it were slaughtered in the afternoon of the fourteenth. Shimon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from seventy-two elders, as the Sanhedrin deliberated and decided on the day that they installed Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya at the head of the yeshiva and ruled that all the slaughtered offerings that are eaten that were slaughtered not for their sake are fit, but these offerings did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, except for the Paschal offering and the sin offering. Based on that version, ben Azzai added to the halakha cited in the first mishna only the burnt offering, which is not eaten, and the Rabbis disagreed and did not concede to him.

▶ 💬 Guemara Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: With regard to a Paschal offering that one slaughtered on the morning of the f…

Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: With regard to a Paschal offering that one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan for its sake, ben Beteira would deem it fit, as he held that the entire day, not only the afternoon, is its designated time. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason the mishna states that according to ben Beteira, a Paschal offering slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth is considered as though it were slaughtered in the afternoon? This language seems to indicate that it does not have the same status as a Paschal offering actually slaughtered in the afternoon. The Gemara responds: Since Rabbi Yehoshua says the term: As though it were slaughtered on the thirteenth, ben Beteira also says the term: As though it were slaughtered in the afternoon. But in fact he maintains that there is no difference between a Paschal offering slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth and one slaughtered in the afternoon. The Gemara asks: If so, rather than disagreeing in the mishna with regard to a Paschal offering that was slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth not for its sake, let them disagree with regard to one slaughtered for its sake; ben Beteira holds that it is fit, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it is unfit. The Gemara answers: If the mishna were to write only that they disagree with regard to a Paschal offering slaughtered for its sake, I would say: But in a case where it was slaughtered not for its sake, Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to ben Beteira that it is disqualified, even though it was slaughtered in the morning, since at least part of the day, the afternoon, is fit for its sacrifice as a Paschal offering. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that they disagree with regard to this case as well. The Gemara asks: How can ben Beteira claim that a Paschal offering may be slaughtered in the morning? But isn’t it written: “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon [bein ha’arbayim]” (Exodus 12:6)? Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, says: Ben Beteira interprets the phrase bein ha’arbayim literally: Between two evenings, i.e., between the eve of the fourteenth and the night after the fourteenth. Accordingly, the Paschal offering may be sacrificed all day long. The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the daily offering, concerning which it is written: “The one lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer bein ha’arbayim” (Numbers 28:4), is the entire day fit for sacrifice also? The Gemara answers: There, since it is written: “The one lamb you shall offer in the morning,” by inference, the term bein ha’arbayim is referring to the actual afternoon. The Gemara counters: Say that one of the lambs should be sacrificed in the morning, and the other one can be sacrificed all day. Why is it evident from the requirement that one be sacrificed in the morning that the other must sacrificed in the afternoon? The Gemara answers: The clause “One lamb you shall offer in the morning” indicates that two lambs are not sacrificed in the morning; the other must perforce be sacrificed in the afternoon. The Gemara asks: With regard to the lamps of the Candelabrum, one should say the same, as it is written: “And when Aaron lights the lamps bein ha’arbayim” (Exodus 30:8). Is the entire day fit for lighting also, according to the opinion of ben Beteira? The Gemara answers: There it is different, as it is written: “To burn from evening to morning” (Exodus 27:21). And it is taught in a baraita: The phrase “from evening to morning” indicates that you must allocate the Candelabrum its measure of oil so that it will burn from evening until morning. Alternatively, the same verse can be interpreted as follows: Only this rite is valid from evening until morning, since all other rites must be performed during the day. Therefore, the Candelabrum is lit only at the end of the day. The Gemara asks: With regard to the incense, one should say likewise, as it is written with regard to it: “Bein ha’arbayim he shall burn it” (Exodus 30:8). Is the entire day also fit for burning the incense according to the opinion of ben Beteira? The Gemara answers: The incense is different,

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français Rabbi Elazar dit que Rabbi Oshaya dit : En ce qui concerne un sacrifice pascal que l’on a abattu le matin du quatorze de…

Rabbi Elazar dit que Rabbi Oshaya dit : En ce qui concerne un sacrifice pascal que l’on a abattu le matin du quatorze de Nissan pour son nom, ben Beteira le jugerait apte, car il soutenait que tout le jour, et non seulement l’après-midi, est son temps désigné. La Guemara demande : Et quelle est la raison pour laquelle la mishna déclare que, selon ben Beteira, un sacrifice pascal abattu le matin du quatorze est considéré comme s’il avait été abattu dans l’après-midi ? Ce langage semble indiquer qu’il n’a pas le même statut qu’un sacrifice pascal réellement abattu dans l’après-midi. La Guemara répond : Puisque Rabbi Yehoshua dit le terme : Comme s’il avait été abattu le treize, ben Beteira dit aussi le terme : Comme s’il avait été abattu dans l’après-midi. Mais en réalité, il maintient qu’il n’y a aucune différence entre un sacrifice pascal abattu le matin du quatorze et un autre abattu dans l’après-midi. La Guemara demande : Si tel est le cas, plutôt que d’être en désaccord dans la mishna au sujet d’un sacrifice pascal abattu le matin du quatorze non pour son nom, qu’ils soient en désaccord au sujet d’un sacrifice abattu pour son nom ; ben Beteira soutient qu’il est apte, et Rabbi Yehoshua soutient qu’il est inapte. La Guemara répond : Si la mishna n’écrivait que ils sont en désaccord au sujet d’un sacrifice pascal abattu pour son nom, je dirais : Mais dans un cas où il a été abattu non pour son nom, Rabbi Yehoshua concède à ben Beteira qu’il est disqualifié, même s’il a été abattu le matin, puisque au moins une partie du jour, l’après-midi, est apte pour son sacrifice comme sacrifice pascal. Par conséquent, la mishna nous apprend qu’ils sont en désaccord dans ce cas également. La Guemara demande : Comment ben Beteira peut-il prétendre qu’un sacrifice pascal peut être abattu le matin ? Mais n’est-il pas écrit : « Toute l’assemblée de la congrégation d’Israël l’égorgera entre les deux soirs [bein ha’arbayim] » (Exode 12:6) ? Ulla, fils de Rav Ilai, dit : Ben Beteira interprète l’expression bein ha’arbayim littéralement : Entre deux soirs, c’est-à-dire entre la veille du quatorze et la nuit après le quatorze. En conséquence, le sacrifice pascal peut être sacrifié tout le long du jour. La Guemara demande : Si tel est le cas, en ce qui concerne le sacrifice quotidien, à propos duquel il est écrit : « Tu offriras un agneau le matin, et l’autre agneau tu l’offriras bein ha’arbayim » (Nombres 28:4), est-ce que tout le jour est apte pour le sacrifice aussi ? La Guemara répond : Là, puisqu’il est écrit : « Tu offriras un agneau le matin », par déduction, le terme bein ha’arbayim se réfère à l’après-midi proprement dit. La Guemara rétorque : Dis que un des agneaux doit être sacrifié le matin, et l’autre peut être sacrifié tout le jour. Pourquoi est-il évident, à partir de l’exigence qu’un soit sacrifié le matin, que l’autre doit être sacrifié dans l’après-midi ? La Guemara répond : La clause « Un agneau tu offriras le matin » indique que deux agneaux ne sont pas sacrifiés le matin ; l’autre doit nécessairement être sacrifié dans l’après-midi. La Guemara demande : En ce qui concerne les lampes du Candelabre, on devrait dire la même chose, comme il est écrit : « Et quand Aaron allumera les lampes bein ha’arbayim » (Exode 30:8). Est-ce que tout le jour est apte pour l’allumage aussi, selon l’opinion de ben Beteira ? La Guemara répond : Là, c’est différent, comme il est écrit : « Pour brûler du soir au matin » (Exode 27:21). Et il est enseigné dans une baraita : La phrase « du soir au matin » indique que tu dois allouer au Candelabre sa mesure d’huile afin qu’il brûle du soir jusqu’au matin. Alternativement, le même verset peut être interprété ainsi : Seul ce rite est valable du soir jusqu’au matin, puisque tous les autres rites doivent être accomplis pendant le jour. Par conséquent, le Candelabre n’est allumé qu’à la fin du jour. La Guemara demande : En ce qui concerne l’encens, on devrait dire de même, comme il est écrit à son sujet : « Bein ha’arbayim il le fera brûler » (Exode 30:8). Est-ce que tout le jour est aussi apte pour brûler l’encens selon l’opinion de ben Beteira ? La Guemara répond : L’encens est différent,

📜 Zeva'him — 11b

📋 Références bibliques — Zeva'him 11b

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant