Talmud sur Avoda Zara 4:9

דּוֹרְכִין עִם הַגּוֹי בַּגַּת, אֲבָל לֹא בוֹצְרִין עִמּוֹ. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בְטֻמְאָה, לֹא דוֹרְכִין וְלֹא בוֹצְרִין עִמּוֹ, אֲבָל מוֹלִיכִין עִמּוֹ חָבִיּוֹת לַגַּת, וּמְבִיאִין עִמּוֹ מִן הַגָּת. נַחְתּוֹם שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בְטֻמְאָה, לֹא לָשִׁין וְלֹא עוֹרְכִין עִמּוֹ, אֲבָל מוֹלִיכִין עִמּוֹ פַת לַפַּלְטֵר:

On peut marcher avec le gentil dans le pressoir, [et nous ne disons pas qu'il tire profit des choses interdites. Car ce tanna soutient qu'il est même permis de le boire, tant qu'il n'est pas descendu à la citerne. Et provoquer une susceptibilité au tumah (gorem) ne se produit pas ici. Car à partir du moment où le gentil les a foulés un peu, ils deviennent tamei, de sorte que le juif n'est pas un gorem ici.] Mais il ne peut pas cueillir (raisins) avec lui. [Car il (le gentil) les met dans son pressoir, qui est tamei. Et le gentil fait le raisin tamei avec son toucher, et le juif, qui cueille avec lui, est un gorem de tumah. Et ce tanna soutient qu'il est interdit d'être un gorem de tumah à chullin (nourriture non consacrée) en Eretz Yisrael, même celui d'un gentil. La halakha n'est pas conforme à cette Michna, car nous soutenons qu'une fois que le vin commence à couler (dans le pressoir), il devient yayin nesech. Par conséquent, il est interdit de marcher avec un gentil dans le pressoir. Et nous soutenons qu'il est permis d'être un gorem de tumah à chullin en Eretz Yisrael lorsque le chullin appartient à un gentil. Par conséquent, il est permis de cueillir (raisins) avec un gentil. Et même si, de ce fait, il est un gorem de tumah à chullin, il n'y a rien de contraire à cela. Cependant, un Juif, cueillant sa vigne, peut, ab initio, ne pas prendre un gentil pour l'aider, même pour amener les raisins au pressoir à cause de «Allez, allez» (loin de la vigne) le Nazaréen, etc. »] Il est interdit de marcher ou de cueillir avec un Juif qui transforme (ses fruits) dans un état de tumah. [Il (le propriétaire) transgresse de ce fait, car il fait du terumoth et du ma'aseroth parmi eux des tamei. Il est donc interdit de l'assister, afin qu'il ne s'y habituât pas.] Mais il peut apporter avec lui des cruches [vides] au pressoir, et il peut apporter avec lui [cruches pleines] du pressoir, [car "ce qui est arrivé, est arrivé." Une fois qu'ils (les raisins) deviennent tamei, il est permis de verser le vin dans des cruches qui sont tamei.] Il est interdit de pétrir (la pâte) ou de la façonner avec un boulanger qui la transforme à l'état de tumah, mais il peut apporter les (pains finis) avec lui à la boutique.

Jerusalem Talmud Challah

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food⁴³The difference between profane food and heave in matters of ritual impurity is that profane food can be impure in the first and second degrees but heave also in the third (cf. Berakhot 5, Note 19). It is stated that ṭevel, produce under the obligation of heave, cannot become impure in the third degree. and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave⁴⁴If there is a doubt that ṭevel may contain impurity in the second degree, it can no longer be a source of heave. Then the remainder of the profane food should be of third degree, i. e., pure and acceptable for heave.. This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with⁴⁵Reading מנינו instead of ממנו; originally the left stroke of מ was very short. The Rome ms. has a shorter and better version: אִם פּוֹסֵל אֶת הַחוּלִּין מִלֵּעָשׂוֹתָן תְּרוּמָה יְהֵא מִנְיָנוֹ בִתְרוּמָה. “If it invalidates profane food so that it cannot be made into heave, it should be counted as heave.” profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there⁴⁶Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 4:1.: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom⁴⁷Cf. Terumot 5, Note 68. A Ṭevul Yom, a formerly severely impure person after immersion in a miqweh but before sundown, is impure in the second degree by biblical standards. Unwashed hands of an otherwise pure person are impure in the second degree by post-biblical, rabbinic and Sadducee, standards. or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there⁴⁸Here, in Mishnah 2.: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said⁴⁹Mishnah 2:3. Rav Sheshet holds that the Mishnah here is R. Aqiba’s but not the Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 4:1., he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state⁵⁰Tosephta 1:11: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity; its ḥallah is suspended {it cannot be eaten since it may be impure, and it cannot be burned since it may be pure.} What kind of doubt are we talking about? Doubt for ḥallah {involving third degree impurity which is inactive for profane food.} Similarly, produce for which a doubt of impurity arose before it was fully processed {before any obligation of heave} should be processed in impurity but after it was fully processed it must be processed in purity; its heave is suspended. What kind of doubt are we talking about? Doubt for heave.”: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt⁵¹The amount is irrelevant for heave. Therefore, R. Zeïra’s argument is irrelevant.? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that⁵²He claims priority over R. Ḥiyya bar Abun.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written (Num. 18:8): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I confirm (Num. 18:28): “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest?” You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his quality of priest⁵³The priest is obligated to consume heave in purity. Since the heave in question may not be consumed, it is not destined for the priest., you may make it impure.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Verset précédent Chapitre complet Verset suivant