top of page
  • Writer's pictureRav Uriel Aviges

Siyum HaShass 5780

Que cherchent les sages du Talmud?


Dans ce cours nous parlons des tensions qui animent le talmud lorsqu'on le regarde dans sa globalite.



 

Les documents

 

Hulin 27a

רב יימר אמר אמר קרא (דברים יב, כא) וזבחת ממקום שזב חתהו מאי משמע דהאי חתהו לישנא דמתבר הוא דכתיב (דברים א, כא) אל תירא ואל תחת

Rav Yeimar says: From where is it derived that slaughter is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “And you shall slaughter [vezavaḥta] of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:21), which is interpreted homiletically: From the place where the blood flows [shezav], break it [ḥattehu], i.e., cut it. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this term, ḥattehu, is an expression of breaking? The Gemara answers: It is inferred from a verse, as it is written: “Neither fear nor be dismayed [teḥat]” (Deuteronomy 1:21); ensure that your spirit will not be broken.

ואימא מחוטמו זב על ידי חתוי בעינן והאי זב מאליו הוא ואימא מלבו ותו שהייה דרסה חלדה הגרמה ועיקור מנלן אלא גמרא שחיטה מן הצואר נמי גמרא

The Gemara challenges: And say that an animal is slaughtered from its nose, from which mucus flows, as the verse did not mention blood. The Gemara responds: We require a fluid that flows by means of breaking, and this mucus flows on its own. The Gemara challenges: And say that an animal is slaughtered from its heart by means of stabbing. And furthermore, with regard to those actions that invalidate slaughter, i.e., interrupting, pressing the knife during slaughter, concealing the knife in the course of an inverted slaughter, diverting the knife from the place of slaughter, and ripping, from where do we derive them? Rather, these disqualifications are learned through tradition. The requirement of slaughter from the neck is also learned through tradition.

 

Midrash rabah bereshit 44

אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה הָיָה דְבַר ה' אֶל אַבְרָם בַּמַּחֲזֶה לֵאמֹר וגו' (בראשית טו, א), (תהלים יח, לא): הָאֵל תָּמִים דַּרְכּוֹ אִמְרַת ה' צְרוּפָה מָגֵן הוּא לְכֹל הַחוֹסִים בּוֹ, אִם דְּרָכָיו תְּמִימִים, הוּא עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה, רַב אָמַר לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְווֹת אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף בָּהֶן אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת, וְכִי מָה אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמִי שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הַצַּוָּאר אוֹ מִי שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הָעֹרֶף, הֱוֵי לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְווֹת אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף בָּהֶם אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הָאֵל תָּמִים דַּרְכּוֹ, זֶה אַבְרָהָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (נחמיה ט, ח): וּמָצָאתָ אֶת לְבָבוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְפָנֶיךָ. אִמְרַת ה' צְרוּפָה, שֶׁצֵּרְפוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּכִבְשַׁן הָאֵשׁ. מָגֵן הוּא לְכֹל הַחוֹסִים בּוֹ, (בראשית טו, א): אַל תִּירָא אַבְרָם אָנֹכִי מָגֵן לָךְ.

After these things the word of Hashem came to Abram in a vision, saying, etc. (Psalms 18:31) "As for God — His ways are perfect; the Word of Hashem is tried; a shield is He for all who take refuge in Him." If His way is perfect, how much more is He Himself! Rav said: Were not the mitzvot given so that man might be refined by them? . Do you really think that The Holy One of Blessing cares if an animal is slaughtered by front or by the back of the neck? Therefore, mitzvot were only given to make humans better.

 

Yomah 80a

א"ר יוחנן שיעורין ועונשין הלכה למשה מסיני עונשין מכתב כתיבי אלא ה"ק (אמר רבי יוחנן) שיעורים של עונשין הלכה למשה מסיני

With regard to this topic, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Measures and punishments are halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara expresses surprise at this: The punishments for all transgressions are written explicitly in the Torah, and therefore are not part of an oral transmission from Moses. Rather,

this is what was said: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Measures that determine liability for punishments are halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

 

Baba kama 46b

א"ר שמואל בר נחמני מניין להמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה שנאמר (שמות כד, יד) מי בעל דברים יגש אליהם יגיש ראיה אליהם

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: From where is it derived that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant? As it is stated in the Torah when Moses appointed Aaron and Hur to judge the people: “Whoever has a cause, let him come near [yiggash] to them” (Exodus 24:14). This is interpreted to mean that whoever has a claim against another should submit [yaggish] proof to them. According to this interpretation, this verse demonstrates clearly that the claimant is responsible for supplying the proof.

מתקיף לה רב אשי הא למה לי קרא סברא הוא דכאיב ליה כאיבא אזיל לבי אסיא

Rav Ashi objects to this: Why do I need a verse to derive this? It is based on logical reasoning that one who suffers from pain goes to the doctor. Just as here the individual with the problem has the responsibility to resolve it, so too, someone with a claim against another must bring a proof to corroborate his claim.

 

Baba kama 21a

אמר רב סחורה אמר רב הונא אמר רב הדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו אין צריך להעלות לו שכר משום שנאמר (ישעיהו כד, יב) ושאיה יוכת שער אמר מר בר רב אשי לדידי חזי ליה ומנגח כי תורא רב יוסף אמר ביתא מיתבא יתיב

Rav Seḥora says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: One who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge does not need to pay him rent because it is stated: “Desolation remains in the city, and the gate is stricken unto ruin” (Isaiah 24:12), i.e., a house that is not lived in will collapse at some point due to neglect. Consequently, one who lives inside an otherwise uninhabited house is providing a service to the homeowner, as he maintains the house and prevents it from falling apart. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: I saw this ruin and it gores like an ox, i.e., it is devastating. Rav Yosef stated a similar idea: A home that is lived in is settled and safeguarded, while a home that is not lived in has no one to look after it and maintain it.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דקא משתמש ביה בציבי ותיבנא

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between what Rav said and what Rav Yosef said? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to a house that the homeowner uses to store wood and straw. The house is not empty and desolate but there is nobody living in it. According to Rav Yosef’s reasoning, a squatter there would not have to pay rent to the homeowner.

 

Hagigah 14b

ת"ר ארבעה נכנסו בפרדס ואלו הן בן עזאי ובן זומא אחר ורבי עקיבא אמר להם ר"ע כשאתם מגיעין אצל אבני שיש טהור אל תאמרו מים מים משום שנאמר (תהלים קא, ז) דובר שקרים לא יכון לנגד עיני

§ The Sages taught: Four entered the orchard [pardes], i.e., dealt with the loftiest secrets of Torah, and they are as follows: Ben Azzai; and ben Zoma; Aḥer, the other, a name for Elisha ben Avuya; and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva, the senior among them, said to them: When, upon your arrival in the upper worlds, you reach pure marble stones, do not say: Water, water, although they appear to be water, because it is stated: “He who speaks falsehood shall not be established before My eyes” (Psalms 101:7).

127 views

Recent Posts

See All

Éloge de la complémentarité et de l'harmonie

Propos recueillis par Alexandre Nemni pour https://www.leclaireur.org La tradition juive semble insister sur l’opposition et la complémentarité entre le masculin et le féminin. Pourquoi est-ce si impo

bottom of page