Rav Uriel Aviges
Dans ce cours nous parlons de la fete de hanouca, du rapport entre l'espace public et l'espace prive, du rapport a l'esthetique chez les juifs et chez les grecs.
Moed katan 8 a And Abaye?7 He needs that [to teach that the inspection is held] by ‘day’, and not at night.8 And whence derives Raba this [point] ‘by day and not at night’? — It is derived by him from, ‘According to all the sight of the eyes of the priest’.9 And Abaye? — He needs that [text] to exclude a person blind in one eye [inspecting a leper]. But does not Raba also require this text for that same point? — Yea, [he does] so also. But then, whence [does he derive the point] ‘by day but not at night’? — He derives it from, ‘Like as a plague was seen by me in the house’,10 [that is, seen] by me, not by [the aid of] my [candle] light. And Abaye?11 — If he did learn from there, I might have said that these [restrictions] obtain [only] where the uncleanness is not personal [of one's body]; but where uncleanness is that of the body, [it may be inspected] also by one's [candle] light. [Therefore] the [original] text12 conveys it to us [best]. Negaim chapitre 2 Mishna 3 In a dark house one may not open up windows to inspect the leprous spot?21 Rashi רש"י מסכת חולין דף י עמוד ב אין פותחין בית אפל - שצריך לפתוח לו חלונות לראות הנגע פוטרין אותו לגמרי כדכתיב (ויקרא יד) כנגע נראה לי .בבית לי ולא לאורי שאם עמד במקום אפל וצריך שם להדליק את הנר אינו נגע On n’ouvre pas de fenetres dans une maison obscure. Une maison obscure dans laquelle il faudrait ouvir des fenetre pour voir la plaie, on ne l’inspecte pas du tout, comme le dit le verset « celui a qui sera la maison ira le déclarer au pontife, en disant: "il m’est apparu quelque altération à ma maison », il m’est apparu a moi, mais pas a la lumiere de ma bougie. רש"ש מסכת חולין דף י עמוד ב ק"ל דא"כ איך יליף רבא במו"ק (ח) מהכא דאין רואין הנגעים בלילה. הא משמע הכא דטעמא הוא משום דחסר .הכנה להדליק את הנר לראותו. אבל אם כבר נר דלוק מעיקרא אה"נ דרואין כמו בחלונות Ceci est difficille, car comment cmprendre que rava deduit dans le traite de moed katan, que l’on ne voit pas la lepre pendant la nuit. Car ici il semble que le probleme decoule du fait qu’il faut preparer quelque chose de nouveau, comme dans un cas ou il faudrait allumer une bougie pour voir la lepre, mais si la bougie été déjà allumee on pourait verifier la tache de la lepre, de la meme manière que l’on verifie, les taches de la lepre a la lumiere des fenetres déjà existantes. Chabat 118 R. Jose said: I have never called my wife 'my wife' or my ox 'my ox', but my wife [I called] 'my home,' and my ox 'my field'. Genese 2 21 L’homme imposa des noms à tous les animaux qui paissent, aux oiseaux du ciel, à toutes les bêtes sauvages; mais pour lui-même, il ne trouva pas de compagne qui lui fût assortie. 21 L’Éternel-Dieu fit peser une torpeur sur l’Homme, qui s’endormit; il prit une de ses côtes, et forma un tissu de chair à la place. 22 L’Éternel-Dieu organisa en une femme la côte qu’il avait prise à l’homme, et il la présenta à l’homme. 23 Et l’homme dit: "Celle-ci, pour le coup, est un membre extrait de mes membres et une chair de ma chair; celle-ci sera nommée Icha, parce qu'elle a été prise de Ich." 24 C'est pourquoi l'homme abandonne son père et sa mère; il s'unit à sa femme, et ils deviennent une seule chair. 25 Or ils étaient tous deux nus, l'homme et sa femme, et ils n'en éprouvaient point de honte. Shabat 152 A Tanna taught: Though a woman be as a pitcher full of filth and her mouth be full of blood, yet all speed after her. Because man goeth to his long home.34 R. Isaac observed: This teaches that every righteous person is given a habitation as befits his honour. This may be compared to a king who enters a town together with his servants. They all enter through the same gate, [yet] when they spend the night [there] each is given a lodging as befits his honour Wabi-sabi (侘寂?) represents a comprehensive Japanese world view or aesthetic centered on the acceptance of transience and imperfection. The aesthetic is sometimes described as one of beauty that is "imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete". It is a concept derived from the Buddhist teaching of the three marks of existence (三法印 sanbōin?), specifically impermanence (無常 mujō?), the other two being suffering (苦 ku?) and emptiness or absence of self-nature (空 kū?). Characteristics of the wabi-sabi aesthetic include asymmetry, asperity (roughness or irregularity), simplicity, economy, austerity, modesty, intimacy, and appreciation of the ingenuous integrity of natural objects and processes. MISHNAH. THE MANNER IN WHICH BURNING IS EXECUTED IS AS FOLLOWS: HE WHO HAD BEEN THUS CONDEMNED WAS LOWERED INTO DUNG UP TO HIS ARMPITS, THEN A HARD CLOTH WAS PLACED WITHIN A SOFT ONE,7 WOUND ROUND HIS NECK, AND THE TWO LOOSE ENDS PULLED IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, FORCING HIM TO OPEN HIS MOUTH. A WICK WAS THEN LIT, AND THROWN INTO HIS MOUTH, SO THAT IT DESCENDED INTO HIS BODY AND BURNT HIS BOWELS Guemarah Whence do we know this?9 — It is inferred from the fact that burning is decreed here;10 and was also the fate of the assembly of Korah,11 just as there the reference is to the burning of the soul, the body remaining intact, so here too. R. Eleazar said: It is deduced from the employment of the word 'burning' here and in the case of Aaron's sons;12 just as there the burning of the soul is meant, while the body remained intact, so here too. Now, he who deduces it from the assembly of Korah, whence does he know [that they were thus burnt]? — Because it is written: [Speak unto Eleazar … that he take up the censers out of the burning … The censers of these sinners against their own souls,13 implying that their souls were burned, but their bodies were unharmed. And the other?14 He maintains that they were literally burnt [i.e., their bodies], and what is the meaning of against their own souls? — That they incurred the punishment of fire because of [the pollution of] their souls; as Resh Lakish [taught]. For R. Simeon b. Lakish said: What is the meaning of the verse, with hypocritical mockers in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth?15 Because they hypocritically [i.e., polluting their own sincerity] flattered Korah in return for the feast he set before them, the Prince of Gehenna16 gnashed his teeth against them [for their destruction]. Now he [R. Eleazar] who infers it from the sons of Aaron, whence does he know [that their bodies were not burnt]? — Because it is written, And they died before the Lord,17 teaching that it was like normal death [from within]. And the other? — He maintains that they were actually burnt, whilst the verse, And they died before the Lord, shews that the fire commenced from within, as in normal death. For it has been taught: Abba Jose b. Dosethai said: Two streams of fire issued from the Holy of Holies, branching off into four, and two entered into each of their nostrils and burned them.18 But it is written, And the fire devoured them?19 — This implies them but not their garments. Rashi vaykrah 10 5 Dans leurs tuniques : Celles des morts. D’où nous apprenons que leurs vêtements n’avaient pas été consumés, mais seulement leurs âmes [vies], comme si deux filaments de feu étaient entrés dans leurs narines (Sanhèdrin 52a). Mishlei 20 27 L'âme de l'homme est un flambeau divin, qui promène ses lueurs dans les replis du coeur. 2 AND ANOTHER FOR THREE YEARS etc. What sort of merit? If I answer merit of [studying] Torah, she is [in the category] of one who is not commanded and fulfils!6 — Rather must it be merit of [performing] a commandment. But does the merit of performing a commandment protect as much as that? — Surely it has been taught: The following did R. Menahem son of R. Jose expound: For the commandment is a lamp and Torah is light7 — the verse identifies the commandment with a lamp and Torah with light; the commandment with a lamp to tell thee that as a lamp only protects temporarily, so [the fulfilment of] a commandment only protects temporarily; and Torah with light to tell thee that as light protects permanently, so Torah protects permanently; and it states: When thou walkest it shall lead thee etc.8 — 'when thou walkest it shall lead thee', viz., In this world; 'when, thou sleepest it shall watch over' thee, viz., in death; and when, thou awakest it shall talk with thee, viz., in the Hereafter. Parable of a man who is walking in the middle of the night and darkness, and is afraid of thorns, pits, thistles, wild beasts and robbers, and also does not know the road in which he is going. If a lighted torch is prepared for him, he is saved from thorns, pits and thistles; but he is still afraid of wild beasts and robbers, and does not know the road in which he is going. When, however, dawn breaks, he is saved from wild beasts and robbers, but still does not know the road in which he is going. When, however, he reaches the crossroads, he is saved from everything.9 Another explanation is: A transgression nullifies10 [the merit of] a commandment but not of [study of] Torah; as it is said: Many waters cannot quench love!11 — Said R. Joseph: A commandment protects and rescues12 while one is engaged upon it; but when one is no longer engaged upon it, it protects13 but does not rescue. As for [study of] Torah, whether while one is engaged upon it or not, it protects and rescues. Raba demurred to this: According to this reasoning, did not Doeg and Ahitophel engage upon [study of] Torah; so Why did it not protect them?14 — But, said Raba, while one is engaged upon [study of] Torah, it protects and rescues, and while one is not engaged upon it, it protects but does not rescue. As for a commandment whether while one is engaged upon it or not, it protects but does not rescue