Parallel
פסחים 24:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
and if it is irrelevant in respect of eating, apply the matter to the prohibition of benefit. If so, just as there [it must be destroyed] by burning, so all prohibited things of the Torah [must be destroyed] by burning? _ Scripture saith, ‘in the holy place . . . it shall be burnt with fire,’ [that which is forbidden] in the holy place requires burning. but all the [other] forbidden things of the Torah do not require burning, But does this [phrase,] ‘in the holy place . . . it shall be burnt with fire,’ come for this [teaching]? Surely it is required for R. Simeon's [dictum]! For it was taught, R. Simeon said: ‘In the holy place ... it shall be burnt with fire’: this teaches concerning the sin-offering that we burn it in the holy place. Now, I only know this alone; how do we know it of the unfit of the [other] most sacred sacrifices and the emurim of the lesser sacrifices? Thereof it is stated, in the holy place . . . it shall be burnt with fire! — Said he to him, R. Jonathan thy teacher deduced it from this verse: And if aught of the flesh of the consecration, or of the bread, remain unto the morning, then thou shalt burn the remainder with fire; it shall not be eaten, because it is holy. Now ‘it shall not be eaten’ need not be stated: then why is ‘it shall not be eaten’ stated? If it is irrelevant in respect of itself, seeing that it is written, ‘then thou shalt burn the remainder with fire’ apply its teaching to the other interdicts of the Torah. And if it is irrelevant in respect of eating, apply its teaching to the prohibition of benefit. If so, just as here [it must be destroyed] by burning, so all the forbidden things of the Torah [must be destroyed] by burning?-Scripture saith, ‘then thou shalt burn the [nothar] remainder: nothar requires burning, but all [other] forbidden things of the Torah do not require burning. Yet does this [verse] ‘it shall not be eaten’ come for this [teaching]? Surely it is required for R. Eleazar's [dictum]! For R. Eleazar said: ‘it shall not be eaten, because it is holy’: whatever of holy [flesh. etc.] that is unfit, the Writ comes to impose a negative injunction against eating it? _ Said Abaye: After all [it is deduced] from the first verse, but reverse [the argument]: for let Scripture write, ‘it shall be burnt with fire,’ so that ‘it shall not be eaten’ will be superfluous; why then is ‘it shall not be eaten’ written? If it is irrelevant for itself, seeing that it is deduced by R. Eleazar's [exegesis], apply its teaching to all [other] interdicts of the Torah. And if it is irrelevant in respect of eating, apply its teaching to the prohibition of benefit. If so, just as here [it must be destroyed] by burning, so all the forbidden things of the Torah must be destroyed] by burning? — Scripture saith, ‘the [nothar] remainder’; ‘nothar’ requires burning, — but all [other] forbidden things of the Torah do not requires burning. R. Papa said to Abaye: Yet say that it comes to assign a negative injunction [specifically] for itself? For if [we learn] from R. Eleazar [‘s dictum], we do not flagellate for an implied negative injunction! — Rather, said R. Papa: [It is deduced] from this: And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten: it shall be burnt with fire. Now,’shall not be eaten’ need not be stated: why then is ‘shall not be eaten’ stated? If it is irrelevant for itself, seeing that it may be deduced a minori from tithe, which is lighter, [thus:] if tithe, which is light, yet the Torah said, neither have I put away thereof, being unclean, how much the more sacred flesh, which is more stringent! And should you say, We cannot give a warning [of flagellation] as a result of an ad majus conclusion, but this is a hekkesh, for it is written, Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thine oil, or the firstlings of thy herd or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou vowest, nor thy freewill-offerings etc. Then why is ‘shall not be eaten stated? If it is irrelevant in its own case, apply its teaching to all [other] prohibitions of the Torah. And since it is irrelevant in respect of eating, apply it to benefit. If so, just as here [it must be destroyed] by burning, so all the forbidden things of the Torah require burning? — Scripture saith, ‘the [nothar] remainder’: nothar requires burning. but all [other] forbidden things of the Torah do not require burning. Rabina said to R. Ashi: Yet perhaps [it teaches that] he transgresses two negative injunctions on its account? Did not Abaye say: if he ate putitha he is flagellated four times; [for] an ant, he is flagellated five times;
—