Mishnah
Mishnah

Talmud sur Témoura 5:4

הֲרֵי זוֹ תְמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּתְמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים, הֲרֵי זוֹ תְמוּרַת עוֹלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אִם לְכֵן נִתְכַּוֵּן מִתְּחִלָּה, הוֹאִיל וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִקְרוֹת שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת, דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. וְאִם מִשֶּׁאָמַר תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה, נִמְלַךְ וְאָמַר, תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים, הֲרֵי זוֹ תְמוּרַת עוֹלָה:

[Si l'on a dit], "Cet [animal] est [à la fois] un substitut pour un Olah et un substitut pour un Shelamim ", alors c'est un substitut pour l' Olah - [ce sont] les paroles de Rabbi Meir; Le rabbin Yosi dit: Si c'est ce qu'il voulait à l'origine, alors comme il est [physiquement] impossible de prononcer deux noms à la fois, ses paroles tiennent; si, quand il a dit: "[Cet animal est] un substitut à un Olah ", il a alors changé d'avis et a dit [c'est-à-dire ajouté], "[Cet animal est] un substitut d'un Shelamim", alors il est un substitut pour un Olah .

Jerusalem Talmud Demai

Rebbi Eleazar said, this is from Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr says that you accept only the very first version. There, we have stated108Mishnah Temurah 5:4: “This one {animal} shall be a substitute for a burnt offering {another animal already dedicated} and a substitute for an offering of well-being, then it is a substitution for a burnt offering, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, if this was his original intention then his words stand since it is impossible to pronounce two names at the same time. But if he changed his mind after he said, this one shall be a substitute for a burnt offering, and said, this one should be a substitute for an offering of well-being, then it is a substitute for a burnt offering.” Our Mishnah cannot be R. Yose’s since he would accept both the first and second versions if the original intention was the same. In the Babli, Temurah 25b/26a, the difference between R. Meïr and R. Yose is reduced to the stylistic nicety whether there is a difference in meaning between “a substitute for a burnt offering and a substitute for a peace offering” and “a substitute for a burnt offering and an offering of well-being.” It is difficult to square that approach with that of the Yerushalmi.: “This one shall be a substitute109While substituting one sacrifice for another is forbidden (Lev. 27:9–10), nevertheless once done it is a valid dedication. for a burnt offering and for an offering of well-being, then it is a substitute for a burnt offering, the words of Rebbi Meïr.” Rebbi Yose110The Amora. In the Tosephta (Temurah 3:5) there are three opinions, that of R. Meïr (who takes only the first statement) and R. Yose (the Tanna, who asks to investigate what was in the mind of the speaker) as in the Mishnah, and that of the Sages who say that the animal should be put out to graze until it develops a bodily defect (and no longer could become a sacrifice) when it should be sold and the money received be split 50-50 to buy burnt and well-being offerings. said, we were of the opinion that Rebbi Meïr and the Sages disagree only after the time for speech111The measure of “time of speech,” the unit for a simple sentence, is defined in Berakhot 2:1, fol. 4b (Notes 50–51)., but not within the time for speech. Since Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, it means that even within the time of speech he cannot retract.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Verset précédentChapitre completVerset suivant