Traité Menachot

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : This baraita, which teaches that the sprinklings are valid only when performed precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, is referring to a case where the priest is standing with his back to the east and his front facing west and he sprinkles the blood. In this case, although the priest does not direct the sprinklings precisely toward the entrance of the Sanctuary, they are valid since he himself is facing the Sanctuary. That baraita, which teaches that the sprinklings are not valid when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, is referring to a case where the priest is standing facing north or south and he sprinkles the blood. In this case, since he is facing the wrong direction they are not valid.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The Master says in the baraita: But with regard to the sprinkling of the blood that takes place inside the Sanctuary and the sprinkling of the oil that takes place during the purification of the leper, if these are performed not for their own sake, then they are not valid. But if they were performed not precisely toward the Holy of Holies, they are valid. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that with regard to the sprinklings of oil during the purification of the leper, whether they were performed not for their own sake or whether they were performed not precisely toward the Holy of Holies, they are valid?

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. This first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and that second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. He explains: Rabbi Eliezer is the tanna who juxtaposes the guilt offering to a sin offering, teaching that just as a sin offering is disqualified when sacrificed not for its sake, so too, the guilt offering, such as the leper’s guilt offering, is disqualified when sacrificed not for its sake, as it is written: “As is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering; there is one law for them” (Leviticus 7:7). He also juxtaposes the log of oil of the leper to the guilt offering of the leper in the same verse, teaching that if the sprinkling from the log of oil was performed not for its own sake, it is not valid. In contrast, the Rabbis do not juxtapose the guilt offering to the sin offering, and therefore they have no reason to invalidate the sprinkling from the leper’s log of oil that is performed not for its own sake.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Eliezer, is it so that a matter derived via juxtaposition then teaches a halakha to another case via juxtaposition? There is a principle that with regard to consecrated matters, a halakha derived via juxtaposition cannot subsequently teach a halakha via juxtaposition. Therefore, the necessity for the sprinklings of the log of oil to be performed for its own sake cannot be derived from juxtaposition between the guilt offering of the leper and the sprinkling of the oil.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rather, Rava said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Here, where the baraita teaches that the sprinklings are valid, it means that they were effective in rendering the offering valid and allowing the priests to partake of the remainder of the log, whereas there, where the baraita teaches that the sprinklings are not valid, it means that they do not effect acceptance, as they do not satisfy the obligation of the owner, and therefore the leper is still prohibited from partaking of sacrificial meat.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : MISHNA: With regard to the seven branches of the Candelabrum (see Exodus 25:32), the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. With regard to its seven lamps atop the branches, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. With regard to the two passages that are in the mezuza, which are the first (Deuteronomy 6:1–9) and second (Deuteronomy 11:13–21) paragraphs of Shema, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. Furthermore, the absence of even one letter prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the rest of them.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : With regard to the four passages that are in the phylacteries, which are the two passages in the mezuza and two additional passages (Exodus 13:1–10, 11–16), the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. Furthermore, the absence of even one letter prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the rest of them. With regard to the four ritual fringes on a garment, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as the four of them constitute one mitzva. Rabbi Yishmael says: The four of them are four discrete mitzvot, and the absence of one does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the rest.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : GEMARA: What is the reason that the absence of any of the seven branches of the Candelabrum prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers: It is written concerning them a term of being: “Their knobs and their branches shall be of one piece with it” (Exodus 25:36), and a term of being indicates an indispensable requirement.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Sages taught (Tosefta, Ḥullin 1:18): The Candelabrum was fashioned from a complete block [ha’eshet] and from gold. If they fashioned it from fragments [hagerutaot] of gold then it is unfit, but if they fashioned it from other types of metal rather than gold, it is fit. The Gemara asks: What is different about a Candelabrum made from fragments of gold, that it is rendered unfit? As it is written with regard to it: “Their knobs and their branches shall be of one piece with it, the whole of it one beaten work of pure gold” (Exodus 25:36), employing the term “beaten [miksha]” and a term of being, indicating that it is an indispensable requirement. But accordingly, a Candelabrum fashioned from other types of metal should be rendered unfit as well, since the verse states that it is made from gold and uses a term of being.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And you shall make a Candelabrum of pure gold; of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made” (Exodus 25:31), to include other types of metal. The Gemara asks: But why not say that the expression “will be made” serves to include a Candelabrum fashioned from fragments of gold? The Gemara answers: It cannot enter your mind to say this, as the term of being, which indicates an indispensable requirement, is written with regard to the command that the Candelabrum be a beaten work, i.e., fashioned from a single block and not from different fragments, as it is stated: “Shall be of one beaten work” (Exodus 25:36).

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara challenges: But the term “will be made” is also written with regard to the command that the Candelabrum be a beaten work, as it is written: “Of beaten work will the Candelabrum be made” (Exodus 25:31). The Gemara answers: The term “beaten work” appears in Exodus 25:31, and the term “beaten work” appears again in Exodus 25:36, to demonstrate that this requirement is indispensable.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara challenges: But the term “gold” appears in Exodus 25:31, and the term “gold” appears again in Exodus 25:36. Why not also say that this as well is to demonstrate that this requirement is indispensable?