פסחים 22 — Soncino English Talmud

¹‘it’ you may cast to dogs, but you may not cast to dogs all [other] things forbidden in the Torah. And R. Meir? — [He interprets:] ‘it’ you may cast to dogs, but you may not cast to dogs hullin killed in the Temple Court. And the other? — [Benefit from] hullin killed in the Temple Court is not [forbidden] by Scriptural law. R. Isaac of Nappaha objected: But what of the nervus ischiadicus, though the Divine Law saith, Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sinew of the thigh-vein, yet we learned: A man may send the thigh [of an animal] to a heathen with the nervus ischiadicus in it, because its place is distinguishable! — R. Abbahu holds, when nebelah was permitted [by the Torah]. it, its forbidden fat, and its thigh sinew were permitted. This is well on the view that the sinews possess the power of imparting a taste. But on the view that the sinews possess no power of imparting a taste, what can be said? — Whom do you know to maintain [that] the sinews have no power to communicate taste? R. Simeon. For it was taught: He who eats of the thigh sinew of an unclean animal, — R. Judah declares him liable on two [accounts], while R. Simeon holds him non-culpable. [According to] R. Simeon, It is indeed forbidden for use too. For it was taught: The thigh sinew is permitted for use; this is R. Judah's view; but R. Simeon forbids it. But what of blood, of which the Divine Law saith, No soul of you shall eat blood, yet we learned, Both these and those mingled in the duct and passed out to the brook of Kidron, and they were sold to gardeners as fertilizers, and trespass is committed in respect of them? — Blood is different, because it is likened to water, for it is written, Thou shalt not eat it,’ thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water: just as water is permitted, so is blood permitted. Yet say, like water poured out as libations upon the altar? — Said R. Abbahu: ‘as water" [means] like most water. Is then ‘most water’ written? — Rather, said R. Ashi: ‘as water’ which is poured out, but not as water offered as a libation. Yet say, like water which is poured out in idol worship? — There too it is designated a libation, as it is written, They drink the wine of their drink offering [libation]. 22^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:I.e., you may not derive any benefit from them.
^ᵇnote:What is the purpose of ‘it’, which expresses a limitation, seeing that he learns this from nebelah?
^ᶜnote:This may not be eaten, and R. Meir deduces here that all benefit is forbidden, v. Kid. 57b.
^ᵈnote:R. Judah: how does he know this?
^ᵉnote:So Rashi, v. however Tosaf. s.v. ihkuj
^ᶠnote:Or, the smith. Many Rabbis were workers or tradesmen.
^ᵍnote:Gen. XXXII, 33.
^ʰnote:The Jew need not remove the nervus ischiadicus before sending it, for fear that another Jew, seeing that the heathen had received it from a Jew, may think that the nerve has been removed and that it is all permitted, because one can easily recognize whether the nervus ischiadicus has been removed or not. Giving anything to a heathen is regarded as benefit, and we thus see that the benefit of this sinew is permitted, which conflicts with R. Abbahu's statement supra 21b.
^ⁱnote:Therefore benefit from all forbidden fat and all sinews is permitted.
^ʲnote:E.g.. if forbidden sinews are boiled together with meat, they impart a flavour to the meat, which renders that too forbidden, unless it is sixty times as much as the sinews. On that view the sinews are as flesh, and therefore when nebelah was permitted it included the sinews.
^ᵏnote:Because they are not flesh, being merely like wood, and nevertheless they are prohibited: hence they cannot be included in the permission granted for nebelah.
^ˡnote:(i) Because it is of an unclean (i.e., forbidden) animal; (ii) because the thigh sinew itself is forbidden.
^ᵐnote:He is not culpable on account of the unclean animal, because he holds that there is no taste in the sinew. Nor is he liable on account of the sinew, for this involves liability only when the flesh of that animal is permitted, but not when the flesh too is forbidden.
^ⁿnote:Lev. XVII, 12.
^ᵒnote:The residues of the blood of the ‘inner’ sin-offerings, which were poured out on the western base of the outer altar, and the residues of the blood of the ‘outer’ sin-offerings, which were poured out on the south base of the altar. These passed out through two small holes and mingled in a duct which ran through the Temple Court.
^ᵖnote:Near Jerusalem.
^ᵠnote:I.e., one may not benefit from them without paying. V. Yoma 58b. — Yet we see that benefit may be derived from blood in general.
^ʳnote:Deut. XII, 24.
^ˢnote:Benefit of which is forbidden.
^ᵗnote:As indicated by the words ‘thou shalt pour it out’.
^ᵘnote:Such water too is forbidden.
^ᵛnote:Ibid. XXXII, 38.

²Now according to Hezekiah, in respect of what law is blood likened to water? — For [the law of] R. Hiyya b. Abba in R. Johanan's name. For R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: How do we know that the blood of sacrifices does not make [anything] fit [to be defiled]? Because it is said, thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water: blood which is poured out as water renders fit; blood which is not poured out as water does not render fit. But what of the limb of a living animal, though it is written, thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh, yet it was taught. R. Nathan said: How do we know that a man must not hold out a cup of wine to a nazirite or the limb of a living animal to the children of Noah? Because it is stated, thou shalt not put a stumbling-block before the blind. This implies that [giving] to dogs is permitted? — The limb of a living animal is different, because it is assimilated to blood, as it is written, Only be steadfast in not eating the blood; for the blood is the life. Then according to Hezekiah, in respect of what law is the limb from a living animal assimilated to blood? — He can answer you: It is blood which is assimilated to the limb from a living animal: just as a limb from a living animal is forbidden, so is the blood from a living animal forbidden, and which [blood] is that? The blood of arteries with which life goes out. But what of the ox that is stoned, though the Divine Law saith, its flesh shall not be eaten, yet it was taught: From the implication of the verse, the ox shall be surely stoned, do I not know that it is nebelah, and nebelah is forbidden as food? Why then is it stated, ‘and its flesh shall not be eaten’? The Writ informs us that if it was [ritually] slaughtered after its trial was ended, it is forbidden. I only know this in respect of eating; how do we know it in respect of benefit? From the verse, but the owner of the ox shall be clear. How is this implied? Simeon b. Zoma said: As a man may say to his friend, ‘So-and-so has gone out clear from his property, and has no benefit whatsoever from it.’ Thus the reason is that ‘but the owner of the ox shall be clear’ is written; for if [we deduced] from ‘it shall not be eaten’ [alone], that would imply a prohibition of eating, but not a prohibition of benefit? — In truth ‘it shall not be eaten’ implies a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit, and as to ‘but the owner of the ox shall be clear,’ that is stated in respect of the use of its skin; and it is necessary: you would think that I might argue, ‘his flesh shall not be eaten’ is written, [thus] only his flesh [is forbidden], but not his skin; therefore we are informed [otherwise]. But according to those Tannaim who employ this verse for a different exegesis. [viz..] for half ransom and damages for children, how do they know [that] the use of the hide [is forbidden]? They infer it from eth besaro [his flesh],meaning, that which is joined to its flesh. And the other? — He does not interpreteth. As it was taught, Simeon Imsoni — others state, Nehemiah Imsoni- interpreted every eth in the Torah; [but] as soon as he came to, thou shalt fear [eth] the Lord thy God, he desisted. Said his disciples to him, ‘Master, what is to happen with all the ethin which you have interpreted?’ ‘Just as I received reward for interpreting them’, he replied, ‘so will I receive reward for retracting’. Subsequently R. Akiba came and taught:Thou shalt fear[eth] the Lord thy God is to include scholars. But there is ‘orlah, whereof the Merciful One saith, Three years shall it be forbidden unto you: it shall not be eaten; yet it was taught: ‘It shall be as forbidden unto you: it shall not be eaten’. [Thus] I only know the prohibition of eating; whence do we know that a man may not benefit from it, that he may not dye or light a lamp with it? From the verse, then ye shall count [the fruit thereof] as forbidden: [three years shall they be] as forbidden [unto you]: it shall not be eaten; which is to include all of them. Thus the reason is that Scripture wrote, ‘then ye shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden . . . they shall be as forbidden; but if it were not so,I would say, it implies a prohibition of eating, [but] it does not imply a prohibition of benefit? — In truth ‘it shall not be eaten’ implies both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit, but there it is different, because it is written, ‘unto you’, and thus it is necessary: I might argue, since it is written, ‘unto you,’ [that implies] it shall be yours; hence we are informed [that it is not so]. Then now that these verses are written, what is the purpose of ‘unto you’?- For what was taught: ‘unto you’: this is to include what is planted^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ

^ʷnote:Since he holds supra 21b that only the passive form, ‘shall not be eaten’, implies a prohibition of all benefit, but not the active ‘thou shalt not eat’, benefit from blood is permitted in any case, for the prohibition is not expressed in the passive. Then what is the purpose of assimilating blood to water?
^ˣnote:Deut. XII, 23. This is interpreted as an injunction against eating a limb torn from a living animal.
^ʸnote:The technical designation for all but Jews. A nazirite must not drink wine, nor may non-Jews eat of the limb of a living animal.
^ᶻnote:Lev. XIX. 14. This is understood metaphorically: do not lead anyone to sin.
^ᵃᵃnote:Though this is benefit.
^ᵃᵇnote:Deut. XII, 23.
^ᵃᶜnote:v. p. 99 n. 10.; the same applies here.
^ᵃᵈnote:And not the reverse, as the order indicates.
^ᵃᵉnote:With the prohibition that is stated in its case, i.e., for eating only.
^ᵃᶠnote:With the prohibition relevant to blood, viz., an injunction which involves kareth (q. v. Glos.).
^ᵃᵍnote:v. Ker. 22a.
^ᵃʰnote:Ex. XXI, 28. Thus it is expressed in the passive, which on all views intimates that general benefit is forbidden.
^ᵃⁱnote:Ibid.
^ᵃʲnote:I.e., after sentence.
^ᵃᵏnote:Cf. p. 100, n. 11.
^ᵃˡnote:Lit., ‘comes’.
^ᵃᵐnote:Teaching, even that is forbidden.
^ᵃⁿnote:Ransom, v. Ex. XXI, 28-30, 35f; it might be thought, by comparing these verses, that half ransom is payable in this case. (Damages for child, v. ibid. 22). I might think that the same holds good when the damage is done by a man's ox Therefore ‘but the owner of the ox shall be clear (E.V. quit)’ teaches that he is free from both.
^ᵃᵒnote:Interpreting ‘eth’, the sign of the acc., as an extending particle.
^ᵃᵖnote:What does ‘eth’ teach on this view?
^ᵃᵠnote:As indicating extensions or having any particular significance apart from its grammatical one.
^ᵃʳnote:Jast. conjectures that it may mean from Amasia, in Pontus.
^ᵃˢnote:As an extending particle.
^ᵃᵗnote:Deut. VI, 13.
^ᵃᵘnote:Holding it impossible that this fear should extend to another.
^ᵃᵛnote:Pl. of eth.
^ᵃʷnote:Lit., ‘separating’ (myself from them). Since the eth in one verse does not signify extension, it cannot do so elsewhere.
^ᵃˣnote:Lit., ‘until’.
^ᵃʸnote:Who are the depositaries of God's word; hence the verse exhorts obedience to religious authority.
^ᵃᶻnote:v. Glos.
^ᵇᵃnote:Lev. XIX, 23.
^ᵇᵇnote:I.e., the repetition of ‘forbidden’ is an extension.
^ᵇᶜnote:viz., you may use it, though not eat it.
^ᵇᵈnote:Repeating the phrase ‘forbidden’ to extend the prohibition to general benefit.