Parallel
מנחות 101:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
an ox condemned to be stoned, the heifer whose neck was to be broken, the birds of the leper, the firstling of an ass, and meat cooked in milk — all these convey food-uncleanness. R. Simeon says, All these do not convey food-uncleanness. R. Simeon, however, agrees that meat cooked in milk conveys food-uncleanness, for there was a time when it was permitted. And R. Assi had said in the name of R. Johanan, What is the reason for R. Simeon's view? [Because it is written], All food therein which may be eaten; [therefore], food which you may give others to eat is termed food, but food which you may not give others to eat is not termed food. And the meal-offering which was made piggul is also a food which you may not give others to eat. If that is so, then meat cooked in milk [should convey food-uncleanness] by virtue of the fact that it is a food which you may give others to eat! For it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, Meat cooked in milk is forbidden to be eaten but is permitted for use, for it is written, For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk; whilst elsewhere it is written, And ye shall be holy men unto Me; therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; [ye shall cast it to the dogs]. Just as there it is forbidden to be eaten but is permitted for use, so here too it is forbidden to be eaten but is permitted for use! — He gave one reason and yet another. For one thing it is a food which you may give others to eat, and besides even for [the Israelite] himself there was a time when it was permitted. An objection was raised [from the following]: R. Simeon says, There is nothar which conveys food-uncleanness and there is also nothar which does not convey food-uncleanness. Thus if [the flesh of the offering] had remained overnight before the sprinkling of the blood, it does not convey food-uncleanness; but if [it had remained overnight] after the sprinkling of the blood, it conveys food-uncleanness. And an offering that had been made piggul, be it of the most holy or of the less holy offerings, does not convey food-uncleanness. But a meal-offering that had been made piggul conveys food-uncleanness! — This is no difficulty, for in the one case there was a time when it had been permitted, whilst in the other there was no time when it had been permitted. How is it that there was no time when it had been permitted? — Where [the grain] had been consecrated [for a meal-offering] while it was still growing. But one could have redeemed it! This of course presents no difficulty according to that version which gives R. Oshaia's view thus: If they became unclean they may be redeemed, but if they are clean they may not be redeemed. But according to the other version which gives as his view: Even though they are clean they may be redeemed, [then the question will be asked here,] one could have redeemed it! — [That is so but] the fact is that it had not been redeemed. But if one so desired one could have redeemed it, and we have heard R. Simeon say that whatsoever stands to be redeemed is as though it were redeemed. For it was taught: The [Red] Cow conveys food-uncleanness, since there was a time when it was permitted [to be eaten]. And Resh Lakish observed that R. Simeon used to say that the Red Cow could be redeemed even on its woodpile! — There is no comparison at all. The Red Cow can rightly be regarded as ready to be redeemed, for if another cow finer than this one is obtainable, it is a meritorious act to redeem it; but as regards meal-offerings, is there any meritorious act to redeem [what has been consecrated for a meal-offering]? But in the case where [a portion of the sacrifice] had remained overnight before the sprinkling [of the blood], there was a duty to sprinkle the blood, and if one so desired one could have sprinkled it, nevertheless the [Baraitha] states that it does not convey food-uncleanness! — We must assume that there was no time left during the day for the sprinkling [of the blood]. Then what would be the position where there was sufficient time left in the day [for the sprinkling]? It would convey food-uncleanness! If so, instead of teaching, ‘If [it remained overnight] after the sprinkling [of the blood] it conveys food-uncleanness’, [the Tanna] should have drawn a distinction in the very case itself in the following terms: This applies only where no time was left during the day [for the sprinkling of the blood], but if there was sufficient time left in the day [for the sprinkling] it conveys food-uncleanness! — That is just what [the Tanna] meant to teach: If [the portion of the sacrifice] had remained overnight before [the blood] was ready for the sprinkling, it does not convey food-uncleanness; but if after [the blood] was ready for the sprinkling, it conveys food-uncleanness. But in the case where an offering, either of the most holy or of the less holy kind, had been made piggul, there was a duty to sprinkle [the blood in the proper manner],40
—