פסחים 24 — Soncino English Talmud

¹and 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;^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ

^ᵃnote:It certainly cannot teach that, since each prohibition of eating is stated separately.
^ᵇnote:For ‘it shall be burnt’ shows that all benefit is forbidden, and this has now been applied to all other prohibitions.
^ᶜnote:Rendered unfit.
^ᵈnote:For ‘and, behold, it was burnt’ (v. n. 6) does not teach where it must be burnt.
^ᵉnote:Lit., ‘devoted objects’; those portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar.
^ᶠnote:Sacrifices were divided into two categories; (i) most sacred; these included the sin-offering, meal-offering, burnt-offering and guilt-offering. (ii) Sacrifices of lesser sanctity, e.g., the peace-offering and the thanksoffering. The question is: how do we know that if these are defiled or their blood is spilled, thus rendering them unfit, they must be burnt in the Temple Court? The flesh of the lesser sacrifices is not mentioned, for this was eaten outside the Temple precincts and consequently when unfit was burnt without the Temple Court, v. infra 49a.
^ᵍnote:I.e., whatever would normally be consumed or otherwise disposed of in the holy place must now be burnt there.
^ʰnote:viz.,this scholar to R. Samuel b. Nahmani.
^ⁱnote:The prohibition of benefit as applied to other forbidden things in the Torah.
^ʲnote:Ex. XXIX, 34.
^ᵏnote:Since we are told that it must be burnt.
^ˡnote:‘Because it is holy’ is unnecessary, and therefore R. Eleazar utilizes it thus. Hence its transgression involves flagellation.
^ᵐnote:The teaching of R. Joshua b. Levi.
^ⁿnote:Viz., ‘and every sin offering’, etc.
^ᵒnote:Without R. Eleazar's deduction, ‘it shall not be eaten’ would be necessary in spite of the statement ‘it shall be burnt with fire’, to show that it is subject to a negative injunction, which involves flagellation. But now that R. Eleazar has deduced a negative injunction in respect of all unfit sacrifices from, ‘it shalt not be eaten because it is holy’, this is superfluous.
^ᵖnote:The verse ‘it shall not be eaten’ written here.
^ᵠnote:I.e., where the action is not explicitly forbidden but only by an injunction stated in general terms, which includes a number of other actions too.
^ʳnote:V. p. 108, n. 9.
^ˢnote:Lev. VII, 19.
^ᵗnote:Deut. XXVI, 14, q.v. This refers to the second tithe, which was eaten by its Israelite owner in Jerusalem, and who had to declare that he had not eaten it ‘being unclean’, which shows that this was forbidden. The sanctity of titles is of course lighter than that of sacrifices.
^ᵘnote:This is a general principle. Hence this argument does not suffice to make it an offence punishable by flagellation, and so ‘shall not be eaten’ is here required.
^ᵛnote:V. Glos.,an analogy between two laws which rests on a Biblical intimation (as Lev. XIV, 13) or on a principle common to both (Jast.). Flagellation is inflicted on the basis of a hekkesh.
^ʷnote:Deut. XII, 17. ‘Vows’ and freewill-offerings’ are sacrifices, and ‘Scripture, by coupling these with tithes, shows that they are the same.
^ˣnote:And is flagellated for each separately. In that case the verse is not superfluous.
^ʸnote:A small water reptile (sherez). a young eel, v. Mak., Sonc. ed. p. 116, n. 8.
^ᶻnote:I.e., four flagellations of the prescribed number of lashes.

²[for] a hornet, he is flagellated six times? — Said he to him: Wherever we can interpret we do interpret, and not apply it to additional injunctions. Now what is the purpose of ‘and the flesh’ [that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten] of the commencement of the verse? — It is to include wood and frankincense. What is the purpose of, ‘And as for the flesh, every one that is clean shall eat thereof’ of the end [of the verse]? — It is to include emurim. [But] emurim are learnt from elsewhere, for it was taught: But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain unto the Lord [having his uncleanness upon him]: this is to include the emurim? — There [the reference is to] the uncleanness of the person, [which is punishable] with kareth, [whereas] here [we treat of] the uncleanness of the flesh, [which is subject to] a negative injuction. R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name: [With regard to] all the prohibited articles of the Torah, we do not flagellate on their account save [when they are eaten] in the normal manner of their consumption. What does this exclude? _ Said R. Shimi b. Ashi: It is to exclude [this. viz.,] that if he ate raw heleb, he is exempt [from punishment]. Others say. R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name: [With regard to] all the prohibited articles of the Torah, we do not flagellate on their account save [when they are used] in the normal manner of their usage. What does this exclude?Said R. Shimi b. Ashi: It is to exclude [this, viz.,] if he applied the heleb of the ox which is stoned upon his wound, he is exempt; and all the more so,if he eats raw meat, he is exempt. It was stated likewise: R. Ahab. R. ‘Awia said in R. Assi's name in R. Johanan's name: If he applies the heleb of the ox which is stoned upon his verse does not bear upon its own subject at all, why specify ‘the flesh’? Scripture could say, and that which toucheth, etc. wound he is exempt, because [in the case of] all the interdicts of the Torah, we do not flagellate on their account save [when they are, used] in the normal manner of their usage. R. Zera said, We too learned [thus]: ‘One does not receive forty [lashes] on account of ‘orlah, save for that which issues from olives or from grapes alone’: but [for that which issues] from mulberries, figs and pomegranates [there is, as implied,] no [flagellation]. What is the reason? Is it not because he does not eat them in the normal manner of their usage? Said Abaye to him: That were well if he informed us of the fruit itself, where he did not eat it in the normal manner of its usage; but here [the reason is] because it is mere moisture. Abaye said: All agree in, respect of kil'ayim of the vineyard, that we flagellate on its account even [when one does] not [enjoy it] in the normal manner of its usage. What is the reason? Because ‘eating’ is not written in connection therewith. An objection is raised: Issi b. Judah said: How do we know that meat and milk [seethed together] are forbidden? It is stated here, for thou art a holy people [...thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk], and it is stated elsewhere, 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, so here too it is forbidden. Again, I know it only of eating; how do I know it of [general] use? I will tell you: [it follows] a minori. If ‘orlah, though no sin was committed therewith, is forbidden for use, then meat and milk [seethed together], wherewith a sin was committed],is it not logical that they are forbidden for use?^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ

^ᵃᵃnote:In Lev. XI, 43, it is stated: Ye shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarmeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them. This is a twofold injunction. and since it does not specify ‘that swarmeth upon the earth’, it applies to both water reptiles and land reptiles. Further v.II, referring to unclean fish, states: and they shall be a detestable thing unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh. This is a third injunction against water reptiles. And finally. in Deut. XIV, 10, there is a fourth injunction: and whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye shall not eat. The ant is a land reptile (‘swarming thing’); hence the two injunctions of Lev. XI, 43 apply to it. There are also the following three: (i) Lev. XI, 41: And every swarming thing that swarmeth upon the earth ... shall not be eaten; (ii) ibid. 42: even all swarming things that swarm upon the earth them ye shall not eat, for they are a detestable thing: And (iii) ibid. 44: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of swarming thing that moveth upon the earth. The hornet is a ‘winged swarming thing’ and also moves upon the earth. Hence it is subject to these five injunctions and also to that of Deut. XIV, 19: And all winged swarming things are unclean unto you: they shall not be eaten. Thus eating one forbidden thing can involve more than one penalty. and the same may apply here.
^ᵃᵇnote:As applying to another subject.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lev. VII, 19.
^ᵃᵈnote:Seeing that the
^ᵃᵉnote:Used in the sacrificial service: though these are not eatables, they nevertheless become unclean.
^ᵃᶠnote:The question is only in respect of ‘and as for the flesh’, the rest of the verse being utilized in Men. 25b.
^ᵃᵍnote:V. Glos. Teaching that if they are defiled and a priest eats them he transgresses the injunction against unclean flesh. The verse accordingly is read thus: and the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten... and the flesh, viz., the emurim. _ Since the emurim must be offered on the altar, the priest is a zar (stranger’) in relation thereto, and transgresses on that account also.
^ᵃʰnote:Lev. VII, 20.
^ᵃⁱnote:Which ‘pertain unto the Lord’.
^ᵃʲnote:The inclusion of emurim in the former would not prove its inclusion in the latter case, since the former is a graver offence, as proved by the greater penalty attaching to it.
^ᵃᵏnote:V. 22b.
^ᵃˡnote:Because heleb is generally used for lighting and softening hides.
^ᵃᵐnote:I.e., flagellation. Actually only thirty-nine were given.
^ᵃⁿnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃᵒnote:For they are not generally pressed for their juice.
^ᵃᵖnote:That there is no flagellation.
^ᵃᵠnote:That which issues from mulberries, etc.
^ᵃʳnote:Lit., ‘sweat’. I.e., he did not eat fruit of ‘orlah at all. Thus this does not support R. Johanan.
^ᵃˢnote:The prohibition of seething a kid in its mother's milk (Deut. XIV, 21) is understood by the Talmud as a prohibition of seething any meat and milk together. The question here is how do we know that if seethed together they are forbidden to be eaten.
^ᵃᵗnote:Ibid.
^ᵃᵘnote:Ex. XXII. 30.
^ᵃᵛnote:I.e., ‘holy man’ etc. introduces a prohibition of eating.
^ᵃʷnote:When it was planted.