פסחים 23 — parallel

23:1

for the public. R. Judah said: It is to exclude what is planted for the public. What is the reason of the first Tanna? Because it is written, ‘and ye shall have planted;’ [this] implies [a law] to the individual, but it does not imply [a law] for the public; [therefore] the Merciful One wrote, ‘unto you’, to include what is planted for the public. While R. Judah [argues]: ‘and ye shall have planted’ implies [a law] both to the public and to the individual, and ‘unto you’ [too] implies both for the public and for the individual: thus it is an extension after an extension, and an extension after an extension has no [other significance] save to limit. But there is terumah, of which the Merciful One saith, There shall no common man eat of the holy thing: yet we learned: An ‘erub may be made for a nazirite with wine, and for a [lay] Israelite with terumah? — Said R. Papa: There it is different, because Scripture saith, your heave-offering: it shall be yours. And the other?; It means, ‘your heave-offering,’ [viz..] that of all Israel. But what of a nazirite, though the Merciful One saith, from the kernels even to the husk, he shall not eat, yet we learned: An erub may be made for a nazirite with wine? — Said Mar Zutra, There it is different, because Scripture saith, [All the days of] his naziriteship: it shall be his. R. Ashi said: He shall be holy, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long: his [hair] growth is holy, but nothing else is holy. Is then ‘and nothing else’ written? But it is clearly as Mar Zutra [stated]. But what of hadash, where the Merciful One saith, And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day; yet we learned: He may cut [the corn] for fodder and feed his cattle? — Said R. Shemaiah, There it is different, because Scripture saith, [ye shall bring the sheaf of the firstfruits of] your harvest.’ [implying,] it shall be yours And the other? — Your harvest’ implies that of all Israel. But what of creeping things, where the Merciful One saith, It is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten; yet we learned: Hunters of beasts, birds, and fish, who chance upon unclean species, are permitted to sell them to Gentiles?-There it is different, because Scripture saith, [they are a detestable thing] unto you: it shall be yours. If so, [it should be permitted] at the very outset too? — Here it is different, because Scripture saith, and they shall be [a detestable thing]: [meaning.] they shall be in their [forbidden] state. Now according to Hezekiah, for what purpose is ‘shall not be eaten’ written-so that ‘unto you’ is adduced to teach that it is permitted; let the Merciful One not write ‘shall not be eaten,’ so that ‘unto you’ will be unnecessary? — Hezekiah can answer you: My opinion is indeed [deduced] from this. But what of leaven, though the Merciful One saith, there shall no leavened bread be eaten, yet it was taught. R. Jose the Galilean said: Wonder at yourself! how can leaven be prohibited for [general] use the whole seven [days]? — There it is different, because Scripture saith, neither shall there be leaven seen unto thee: [this implies,] it shall be thine.And the Rabbis? — Thine own thou must not see, but thou mayest see that belonging to others and to the Most High. And the other? ‘unto thee’ is written twice. And the other? — One refers to a heathen whom you have conquered, and the other refers to a heathen whom you have not conquered. And the other? — ‘Unto thee’ is written three times. And the other? — One refers to leaven [se'or], and one refers to leavened bread [hamez]. and they are [both] necessary. Shall we say that it is dependent on Tannaim? [And the fat of that which dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts.] may be used for all service [: but ye shall in no wise eat of it]. Why is ‘for all service’ stated? For I might think, for the service of the Most High let it be permitted, but for secular service let it be forbidden; therefore it is stated, ‘for all service’: this is the view of R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba said: For I might think, for secular service let it be clean, [but] for service of the Most High let it be unclean; therefore it is stated, ‘for all service’. Now R. Jose the Galilean [holds] that in respect of uncleanness and cleanness a verse is not required, a verse being required only in respect of what is forbidden and what is permitted. While R. Akiba [maintains]: [in respect of] what is forbidden and what is permitted no verse is required, a verse being required only in respect of uncleanness and cleanness.

—

23:2

Surely then they differ in this, [viz..]: R. Jose the Galilean holds, ye shall not eat’ connotes both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit, and when the verse comes to permit nebelah, it comes in respect of benefit. While R. Akiba holds: it connotes a prohibition of eating, [but] does not connote a prohibition of benefit, and for what [purpose] does the verse come? In respect of uncleanness and cleanness! No: all hold that ‘ye shall not eat’ connotes both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit, but here they differ in this: R. Jose the Galilean holds, when nebelah was permitted, it [alone] was permitted, [whereas] its fat [heleb] and its sinew were not permitted, and [therefore] for what purpose is the verse required? It is in respect of permission for use. But R. Akiba holds: when nebelah was permitted, its fat [heleb] and its sinew too were permitted; hence for what purpose is the verse necessary? It is in respect of uncleanness and cleanness. Now as to R. Jose the Galilean, we have found that the Divine Law permits heleb for use; but as for the sinew, let us say that it is forbidden?-If you wish I can say that it is in fact forbidden. Alternatively, it is adduced a minori: if heleb, for which there is a penalty of kareth, is permitted for use, how much the more the sinew, for which there is no penalty of kareth. But R. Simeon, who forbids it, [argues]: This can be refuted. As for heleb, that is because It is freed from its general [prohibition] in the case of a beast; will you say [the same] of the sinew, which was not freed from its general [prohibition] in the case of a beast? And the other? — We are speaking of cattle [behemah]; [and] in the case of cattle at all events it [sc. heleb] was not permitted. Consider: we have raised objections from all these verses and answered them; [then] wherein do Hezekiah and R. Abbahu differ? — In respect of leaven during Passover, on the view of the Rabbis, [and] in respect of the ox that is stoned, and this on the view of all: Hezekiah deduces it from ‘shall not be eaten’, while R. Abbahu learns it from nebelah. Consider: according to both Masters they are forbidden for use: [then] wherein do they [practically] differ? — They differ in respect of hullin which was slaughtered in the Temple Court: Hezekiah holds, ‘shall not be eaten’ is to exclude these, while ‘it’ is to exclude hullin which was slaughtered in the Temple Court. R. Abbahu holds: ‘it’ is to exclude these, while hullin which was slaughtered in the Temple Court is not forbidden [for use] by Scriptural law. One of the scholars sat before R. Samuel b. Nahmani, and he sat and said in R. Joshua b. Levi's name: How do we know of all prohibitions in the Torah, that just as they are forbidden for food, so are they also forbidden for use, and which are they? Leaven [hamez] during Passover and the ox that is stoned? ([You ask,] ‘How do we know’! — learn it from ‘it shall not be eaten’?-To him ‘it shall not be eaten’ implies a prohibition of eating, but it does not imply a prohibition of benefit. Then let him deduce it from nebelah? — He agrees with R. Judah, who maintained: The words are as they are written. If he agrees with R. Judah. let him deduce it whence R. Judah deduces it, [viz.] from ‘ye shall cast it to the dogs’? _ He holds that hullin which was slaughtered in the Temple Court is [forbidden for use] by Scriptural law. Whence then do we know it?) — From the verse, And no sin-offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt with fire. Now, ‘it shall be burnt with fire’ need not be stated; then what is the purpose of ‘it shall be burnt with fire’? If it is unnecessary in its own connection, seeing that it is written, and, behold, it was burnt, apply its teaching to all [other] prohibitions of the Torah;23

—