Talmud sur Menachot 3:3

שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצוּ, וְנִתְעָרְבוּ זוֹ בָזוֹ, אִם יָכוֹל לִקְמֹץ מִזּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וּמִזּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ, כְּשֵׁרוֹת. וְאִם לָאו, פְּסוּלוֹת. הַקֹּמֶץ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמִנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה, לֹא יַקְטִיר. וְאִם הִקְטִיר, זוֹ שֶׁנִּקְמְצָה, עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים, וְזוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה, לֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. נִתְעָרֵב קֻמְצָהּ בִּשְׁיָרֶיהָ אוֹ בִשְׁיָרֶיהָ שֶׁל חֲבֶרְתָּהּ, לֹא יַקְטִיר. וְאִם הִקְטִיר, עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. נִטְמָא הַקֹּמֶץ וְהִקְרִיבוֹ, הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה. יָצָא וְהִקְרִיבוֹ, אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה, שֶׁהַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל הַטָּמֵא, וְאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה עַל הַיּוֹצֵא:

Deux offrandes de céréales dont les poignées n'avaient pas encore été retirées ont été mélangées: s'il est encore possible de prendre la poignée de chacune séparément, elles sont valables; Sinon, ils ne sont pas valides. Si la poignée [d'une offrande de grain] était mélangée à une offrande de grain dont la poignée n'avait pas encore été prise, il ne devait pas la brûler. S'il l'a brûlé, alors l'offrande de céréales dont la poignée avait été prise remplit l'obligation du propriétaire tandis que l'autre dont la poignée n'avait pas été prise ne remplit pas l'obligation du propriétaire. Si la poignée a été mélangée avec le reste de l'offrande de céréales ou avec le reste d'une autre offrande de céréales, elle ne doit pas être brûlée; S'il a brûlé, il remplit l'obligation du propriétaire. Si la poignée était devenue impure et qu'il l'offrait pourtant, la plaque de tête [du Souverain Sacrificateur] la rend acceptable, mais si elle sortait [de la Cour du Temple] et ensuite il l'offrait, la plaque de tête ne la rend pas acceptable. Car la plaque de tête ne rend acceptable qu'une offrande impure mais pas celle qui a été retirée.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels⁶⁷The regular discipline of flour offerings is that flour and oil are mixed in one sanctified vessel, then the priest takes a fistful, deposits it into a second vessel which he carries to the altar and empties into the flames. Since in any case a second vessel is involved, may the offering be brought from the start in two vessels, and the fistful taken from one and deposited into a third permits the contents of both original vessels to be consumed by the priests?? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel⁵⁹Since the leftovers of flour offerings have to be eaten by priests, they have to be taken from the vessel in which they were presented to the altar. Since the vessel is not needed after presentation and burning of a fistful on the altar, one might think that then the vessel acts like a profane vessel and does not imply disqualification of the entire content composed of disjoint pieces if one piece became disqualified. As long as the vessel is actually used it transmits disqualification. Babli 23b.. Here also because they have to be in their vessel⁶⁸If the offering from the start is in two separate vessels, where is the one vessel which combines the contents such that if part becomes disqualified everything is disqualified? As before the answer is that since no offering may be presented without being in a vessel, that vessel is a necessity of the service and the multitude of original vessels is irrelevant.. Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines”⁶⁹The previous argument is extended from flour offering to incense, which at least for the shewbreads always is in multiple containers, and the other offerings.. Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl⁷⁰The scribe’s text is the correct one, confirmed by the Babli (Menaḥot 7a,24a/b). The corrector’s change is erroneous., if one became impure did the other become impure⁷¹While an argument may be made that if part of a flour-offering becomes disqualified the whole becomes disqualified, does the argument extend to actual impurity (or order <4), so that the contents of a vessel can cause impurity or disqualification to anything it comes in contact with, without ever having been touched by anything impure?? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump⁷²From one vessel to another with which it is not in contact.? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other⁷³Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question.? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there⁷⁴Mishnah Menaḥot 3:3., “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately⁷⁵If the materials of the two offerings are recognizable as distinct. they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other⁷⁶One has to say that the statement that the vessel combines is a biblical one; therefore on the one hand the vessel transmits disqualification from one piece to a disjoint one, and on the other hand permits to take a fistful from the offering although certainly parts of the offering are mixed with another, which without the combining action of the vessel would disqualify.? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other⁷⁷Of a flour-offering presented in two or more vessels., if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup⁷⁷Of a flour-offering presented in two or more vessels.? Which makes its contents one.⁷⁸Sifry Num. 49, Babli 23b. The reference is to the offerings of the heads of tribes for the inauguration of the Tabernacle (Num.7:14, 20, 26, 32, 38, 44, 50, 56, 62, 68, 74, 80). It would have been sufficient to state that each of them brought “a cup full of incense”. The emphasis 12 times on “one cup full of incense” is explained by that the cup makes the offering an indivisible entity.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it⁷⁹He denies that impurity may be transferred by action at a distance..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Verset précédent Chapitre complet Verset suivant