Menachot 101b (קא:) — the Talmud in English

And an ox sentenced to be stoned

whose verdict was finalized because it killed a person or had intercourse with a person, and which became forbidden for benefit, and then they slaughtered it,

and a heifer whose neck was broken

which they slaughtered after it became forbidden for benefit,

and the birds of a leper

which he brings for his purification, and which he slaughtered,

and the firstborn donkey

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

and meat

that was cooked

with milk—

Although all of these are forbidden for benefit,

all of them impart the ritual impurity of food.

Rabbi Shimon says:

None of them imparts the ritual impurity of food,

since they became forbidden for benefit, as he explains the reason below.

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

even though it is now forbidden for benefit—

that

it

imparts the ritual impurity of food, since it had

already

a period of fitness

to become impure before it became forbidden on account of meat cooked with milk. This is not so with regard to all the others, which never had a time when they were fit to become impure.

And Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon?

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

From all the food that may be eaten... it shall become impure [if a creeping animal touches it].” Therefore, Scripture says “that may be eaten” in order to teach:

Food that you can feed to others

[a gentile]

is called food; food that you cannot feed to others

because its benefit is forbidden to you

is not called food

and does not become impure with the impurity of food like other food.

And on this basis the Gemara explains the reason that an offering in which one had the intention of piggul does not impart the ritual impurity of food according to Rabbi Shimon:

and does not contract impurity like other food. On this basis, the Gemara explains the reason that an offering in which a disqualifying intention was formulated does not convey the ritual impurity of food according to Rabbi Shimon:

But an offering in which one had the intention of piggul as well

is

food that you cannot feed to others,

because piggul is forbidden for benefit, and therefore it does not become impure with the ritual 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 ritual impurity of food—

with regard to meat cooked with milk as well, let it follow

that it becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food because

it is food that you can feed to others,

for according to Rabbi Shimon, meat cooked with milk is not forbidden for benefit. Why, then, did Rabbi Shimon need the reason that it had a period of fitness!?

d.

For

it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi

Shimon:

Meat cooked with milk is forbidden to be eaten but permitted for benefit, as it is stated with regard to meat cooked with 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: “

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

you shall cast it to the dog.” And we derive one occurrence of “holiness” from the other:

Just as there it is forbidden to be eaten but permitted for benefit,

since the Torah said, “You shall cast it to the dog,” and the dog's food is thereby provided for it, while one benefits by casting it before the dog,

so too here,

with regard to meat cooked with milk,

it is forbidden to be eaten but permitted for benefit

—

In any event, it is explained that according to Rabbi Shimon, meat cooked with milk is not forbidden for benefit. Why, then, is the reason that it had a period of fitness necessary!?

And we answer:

He states one reason and another as well

[the reason mentioned in the beraita is an additional reason; meat cooked with milk becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food for two reasons]:

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

according to Rabbi Shimon himself.

And another: For him

[the owner of the meat] as well,

it had

a period of fitness

before it became meat cooked with milk.

Meytivi

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

Rabbi Shimon says:

There is notar

[which is forbidden for benefit]

that imparts the ritual impurity of food,

even though it is now forbidden for benefit—

And there is notar that does not impart the ritual impurity of food,

since it is now forbidden for benefit;

how so?

If the meat remained overnight

[the night passed over it and it became notar]

before the sprinkling—

since it still had not had a period of being permitted, because the blood had not been sprinkled to permit it—

it does not impart the ritual impurity of food.

But if it remained overnight

after the sprinkling—

since it had already had a period of being permitted through the sprinkling—it

imparts the ritual impurity of food.

And piggul—

which necessarily occurs during the sacrificial service that permits the offering—

whether with regard to sacrificial offerings of the most sacred order or with regard to sacrificial offerings of lesser sanctity, it does not impart the ritual impurity of food,

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

But

an offering in which one had the intention of piggul—

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

does impart the ritual impurity of food.

This is difficult for Rabbi Oshaya, who said: Even an offering in which one had the intention of piggul and which had a period of fitness does not impart the ritual impurity of food!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

Here—

in the beraita—the case is one in which

it had

for the meal-offering

a period of fitness

before he consecrated the meal-offering; therefore it imparts the ritual impurity of food.

Here—

in the statement of Rabbi Oshaya—

it did not have a period of fitness, and therefore it does not become impure with the ritual impurity of food.

The Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances

of a meal-offering

that

did not have a period of fitness?

But before it was consecrated, it had a period of fitness!?

And we answer: In a case where

he consecrated them—

the meal-offering's wheat—

while attached

to the ground, so that they cannot become impure.

The Gemara continues to object:

Then let him redeem them

[that is, the meal-offering did have a period of fitness after its verbal consecration, through redemption]. And the Gemara explains its objection:

This works according to the version

on the preceding folio

that Rabbi Oshaya said:

Meal-offerings and libations that one consecrated verbally, when they are

impure,

alone

may be redeemed,

but when they are

pure, they may not be redeemed—

then

properly

Rabbi Oshaya said that an offering in which one had the intention of piggul, and which was consecrated while attached to the ground, does not have a period of fitness, since it cannot be redeemed.

But according to the version that says

that Rabbi Oshaya said:

Even pure offerings may be redeemed,

if so,

let him redeem them

[and the Gemara proceeds to explain the objection]!?

And we answer: Indeed, had he redeemed it, the meal-offering would have been fit to become impure; nevertheless,

at present he has not redeemed it

[he has still not redeemed it].

The Gemara continues to object:

And

since

if he wishes, he can redeem it

[if he wanted to, he could redeem it],

we have heard Rabbi Shimon say: Anything that is destined

to be redeemed is considered as though it were redeemed!?

d.

For

it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon says:

A red heifer

that was slaughtered

imparts the ritual impurity of food,

even though it is forbidden for benefit like sacrificial offerings,

since it had a period of fitness,

as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And Reish Lakish said

to explain:

Rabbi Shimon would say that a red heifer

red

may be redeemed

even

on its pyre

[once it had been placed there to be burned], and anything that is destined to be redeemed is considered as though it were redeemed, so it has a period of fitness—

And if so, since a meal-offering had a period of fitness from the time it was consecrated until it became piggul, because he could have redeemed it, let us say that according to Rabbi Shimon it imparts the ritual impurity of food, contrary to Rabbi Oshaya!?

And we answer:

Can this be compared

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

Granted, a red heifer

indeed

is destined to be redeemed, for if one finds another more attractive than it,

then

it is a mitzva to redeem it,

and therefore we say, “Anything that is destined to be redeemed is considered as though it were redeemed”—

But these meal-offerings—

is it

a mitzva to redeem them!?

How, then, can you say, “Anything that is destined to be redeemed is considered as though it were redeemed”?

Here the Gemara returns to challenge the beraita from Rabbi Shimon's ruling regarding a red heifer:

But “

if it remained overnight before the sprinkling”—

as stated in the beraita, that it does not impart the ritual impurity of food since the blood had not yet been sprinkled and it had not had a period of fitness—

for

it is

a mitzva to sprinkle it, and

also

if he wishes, he can sprinkle it

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

and

nevertheless

it teaches: It does not impart the ritual impurity of food. We do not therefore consider it, on this account, as something that had a period of fitness. This contradicts the case of the heifer, which is destined to be redeemed and is therefore considered to have had a period of fitness!?

And we answer: Indeed, were there a situation in which he could sprinkle it, it would impart the ritual impurity of food; rather,

what are the circumstances here

in the beraita? It is a case where

there was no time during the day to sprinkle it,

because he slaughtered it close to sunset,

and it never had a period of fitness. The Gemara objects to this:

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

would you say? According to your answer, indeed it

imparts

the

ritual impurity of food

—if so, rather than having the beraita distinguish between whether the blood was sprinkled or whether the blood was not sprinkled—

let the tanna distinguish

within that case itself

[the case of remaining overnight before the sprinkling], and say as follows:

When does this statement apply, that it does not impart the ritual impurity of food? In a case where

there was no time during the day

to sprinkle its blood.

But if there was time during the day

to sprinkle its blood, it

imparts the ritual impurity of food,

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

And we answer:

This is indeed what it says

[indeed, this is the intended distinction in the beraita]—

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

If it remained overnight before the time when it became fit for sprinkling, it does not impart the ritual impurity of food; and what we learned, “If it remained overnight after the sprinkling,” means: If it remained overnight

after the time when it became fit for sprinkling, it imparts the ritual impurity of food.

The Gemara continues to object from the continuation of the beraita, according to Rabbi Shimon's reasoning that anything destined to be redeemed or sprinkled is considered as though it had already been so, and is therefore considered to have had a period of fitness:

But

with regard to

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

before he had the intention of piggul it was

a mitzva to sprinkle it

without piggul,

pigul, whether among offerings of the most sacred order or among offerings of lesser sanctity, for

before it became pigul,

it was a mitzva to sprinkle its blood

without the disqualifying intention,