Menachot 101b — the Talmud in English

and an ox condemned to stoning

whose verdict was finalized because it killed a person or because it lay with a person, and it became forbidden to derive benefit from it, and afterward they slaughtered it,

and a beheaded heifer

which they slaughtered after it became forbidden to derive benefit from it,

and the birds of a leper

that he brings for his purification, which he slaughtered,

and the firstborn of a donkey

which an Israelite slaughtered while it was still moving and was not a carcass,

and meat

that was cooked

in milk—

Although all these are forbidden to derive benefit from,

all of them transmit the impurity of food.

Rabbi Shimon says:

None of them transmits the impurity of food

since they became forbidden to derive benefit from, as he explains the reason below.

And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to meat cooked in milk—

even though it is now forbidden to derive benefit from—

that

it

transmits the impurity of food, since it had

already

a time of fitness

to become impure before it became forbidden on account of meat cooked in milk; unlike all the others, which never had a time when they were fit to become impure.

And Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon,

because it is stated [Leviticus 11:39]: “

From all the food that may be eaten ...

shall become impure [if a creeping creature touched it],” and therefore Scripture said “that may be eaten” in order to teach:

Food that you can feed to others

[to a gentile]

is called food; food that you cannot feed to others

because deriving benefit from it is forbidden to you

is not called food

and does not become impure as other food does. And on the basis of this the Gemara explains the reason that an offering in which one had an improper intention does not transmit the impurity of food according to Rabbi Shimon:

But an offering in which one had an improper intention also

is

food that you cannot feed to others

because pigul is forbidden to derive benefit from, and therefore it does not become impure with the impurity of food.

And we raise an objection to this:

If so—

that, because it is food that you cannot feed to others, it does not become impure with the impurity of food—

with regard to meat cooked in milk also, let it follow

that it receives the impurity of food because

it is food that you can feed to others,

for according to Rabbi Shimon meat cooked in milk is not forbidden to derive benefit from, and why did Rabbi Shimon require the reason that it had a time of fitness

!?

But

For it is taught in a

beraita:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi

Shimon:

Meat cooked in milk is forbidden to eat and permitted to derive benefit from, as it is stated

with regard to meat cooked in milk [Deuteronomy 14]: “

For you are a holy people to the Lord

your God; you shall not cook a kid in the milk of its mother”—

And below

[Exodus 22]

it says: “

And you shall be holy people to Me, and flesh torn in the field you shall not eat;

you shall cast it to the dog,” and we derive one holiness from the other:

Just as there it is forbidden to eat and permitted to derive benefit from,

for Scripture said, “You shall cast it to the dog,” and the dog’s food is his, and one benefits by casting it before him,

so here,

with regard to meat cooked in milk,

it is forbidden to eat and permitted to derive benefit from—

In any event, it is explained that according to Rabbi Shimon meat cooked in milk is not forbidden to derive benefit from, and why do I need the reason that it had a time of fitness

!?

And we answer:

He states one reason and another

[the reason mentioned in the beraita is an additional reason, and for two reasons meat cooked in milk transmits the impurity of food]:

One reason: It is food that you can feed to others,

according to Rabbi Shimon himself.

And another: For him

[for the owner of the meat] as well

it had

a time of fitness

before it became meat cooked in milk.

Meitivi

to Rabbi Oshaya, who holds that an offering in which one had an improper intention does not transmit the impurity of food, even though it had a time of fitness before the meal-offering was consecrated; for we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Shimon says:

There is notar

[which is forbidden to derive benefit from]

that transmits the impurity of food,

even though it is now forbidden to derive benefit from—

And there is notar that does not transmit the impurity of food

because it is now forbidden to derive benefit from

; how so:

If the flesh remained overnight

before the sprinkling—

it does not transmit the impurity of food.

But if it remained overnight

after the sprinkling—

when it already had a time of permission through the sprinkling—then it

transmits the impurity of food.

And pigul—

which necessarily occurs during the service that permits—

whether among offerings of the most sacred order or among offerings of lesser sanctity, does not transmit the impurity of food,

for it was never permitted: at the time he performed the service that permits it, it had already become pigul, whereas during its lifetime, even before it was consecrated, this is not a time of fitness.

But

an offering in which one had an improper intention—

which had a time of fitness before it was consecrated as a meal-offering—then it

transmits the impurity of food.

This is difficult for Rabbi Oshaya, who said: Even an offering in which one had an improper intention, which had a time of fitness, does not transmit the impurity of food

!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

Here—

in the beraita—in a case where

the meal-offering

had a time of fitness

before he consecrated the meal-offering, and therefore it transmits the impurity of food.

Here—

in the words of Rabbi Oshaya—

it did not have a time of fitness,

and therefore it does not become impure with the impurity of food.

The Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances of a

meal-offering

that did not have a time of fitness,

for before it was consecrated it had a time of fitness!?

And we answer: In a case where

he consecrated them—

the wheat of the meal-offering—

while attached

to the ground, which does not receive impurity.

And we still raise an objection:

Then let him redeem them

[let him redeem them], meaning, they had a time of fitness after the verbal consecration, through redemption; and the Gemara explains its objection:

This works according to that version

—on the preceding folio—

in which Rabbi Oshaya said: Meal-offerings and libations that he consecrated verbally, when they are

impure alone they are

redeemed,

but when they are

pure, they are not redeemed—then

properly

did Rabbi Oshaya say that an offering in which one had an improper intention, which was consecrated while attached, does not have a time of fitness, for he cannot redeem them.

But according to that version in which he said

it is well

that Rabbi Oshaya said that an offering in which a disqualifying intention was formulated, and which was consecrated while attached to the ground, had no period when it was fit, since they could not be redeemed.

Rabbi Oshaya:

Even pure offerings can be redeemed,

if so,

let him redeem them

[and he proceeds to explain it]!?

And we answer: Indeed, if he were to redeem it, the meal-offering would be fit to receive impurity, but in any event

now, at least, he has not redeemed it

[he has still not redeemed it].

And we still raise an objection:

And

for

since, if he wished, he could redeem it

[if he wished, he could redeem it],

we have heard Rabbi Shimon say: Anything that stands

to be redeemed is considered as redeemed!?

a

For

it is

taught:

Rabbi Shimon says:

A red heifer

that was slaughtered is

impure with the impurity of food,

even though it is forbidden to derive benefit from, like sacred offerings,

since it had a time of fitness,

as he explains below.

And Reish Lakish said

to explain:

Rabbi Shimon would say that a red heifer

red

can be redeemed

even

upon its pyre

[once it was placed there to be burned], and anything that stands to be redeemed is considered as redeemed, and it has a time of fitness—

And if so, even a meal-offering, since it had a time of fitness from the time it was consecrated until it became pigul, for he could have redeemed it, should be said to transmit the impurity of food according to Rabbi Shimon, and not in accordance with Rabbi Oshaya

!?

And we answer:

Is that so

[is the case under discussion comparable to the proof]!?

Granted, with regard to a red heifer,

red indeed

it stands to be redeemed, for if he found another more beautiful than it

then

it is a mitzva to redeem it

and therefore we say, “Anything that stands to be redeemed is considered as redeemed”—

But these meal-offerings—

do they

have a mitzva to be redeemed!? Until you say, “Anything that stands to be redeemed is considered as redeemed.”

Here the Gemara returns to raise an objection to the beraita from Rabbi Shimon’s ruling concerning a red heifer:

But “

if it remained overnight before the sprinkling”—

as it is stated in the beraita that it does not transmit the impurity of food since the blood had not yet been sprinkled and it had not had a time of fitness—

for

it

is a mitzva to sprinkle it, and

also

if he wished, he could sprinkle it

[it is a mitzva to sprinkle, and he has the ability to sprinkle],

and

nevertheless

it teaches: It does not transmit the impurity of food, and we do not therefore consider it as something that had a time of fitness; so the case of a red heifer, which stands to be redeemed and is consequently considered to have “had a time of fitness,” is difficult!?

And we answer: Indeed, if the situation were such that he could sprinkle it, it would become impure with the impurity of food; rather,

what are we dealing with here

in the beraita? In a case where

there was not enough time during the day to sprinkle it,

for he slaughtered it close to sunset,

and it never had a time of fitness. And we raise an objection to this:

But if there was enough time during the day to sprinkle it, what

would you say—according to your answer—that indeed it

transmits

the

impurity of food

, and if so, rather than having the beraita distinguish between when the blood was sprinkled and when the blood was not sprinkled—

let the

tannai

distinguish

within that case itself

[within the case of remaining overnight before the sprinkling itself], and let it say:

When do these words apply, that it does not transmit the impurity of food? In a case where

there was not enough time during the day

to sprinkle its blood;

but if there was enough time during the day

to sprinkle its blood, then it

transmits the impurity of food,

since he can sprinkle it, and anything that stands to be sprinkled is considered as sprinkled!?

And we answer:

This too is what it says

[indeed, this is the intention of the beraita in making the distinction]—

For what we learned, “if it remained overnight before the sprinkling,” means:

if it remained overnight before it was fit for sprinkling, it does not transmit the impurity of food,

and what we learned, “if it remained overnight after the sprinkling,” means: it remained overnight

after it was fit for sprinkling, it transmits the impurity of food.

And we still raise an objection from the continuation of the beraita, according to Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning that anything that stands to be redeemed or sprinkled is as though it has already been done and is considered to have “had a time of fitness”:

But

with regard to

an offering in which one had an improper intention, whether among offerings of the most sacred order or among offerings of lesser sanctity, for

before he had the improper intention it was

a mitzva to sprinkle it

without an improper intention,

without the disqualifying intention,