Pesachim 22a (כב.) — the Talmud in English

The phrase “you shall cast it to the dog, but you may not cast to the dog any of the other prohibitions of the Torah” is stated by Rabbi Meir to teach that “you shall cast it to the dog, but you may not cast to the dog” applies to non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. ...

They have an explicit prohibition,

the verse “it” was therefore necessary to include them in the prohibition against deriving benefit.

We learn from the word “it” that they are prohibited, because this verse also addresses a prohibition that arises on account of boundaries. For from the verse “You shall not eat flesh torn in the field,” we also derive that if the fetus extended its foreleg outside its mother’s body at the time of slaughter, the slaughter does not permit it. And we expound specifically that this fetus, which became prohibited because it left the boundaries of its mother and thereby became prohibited, is nevertheless permitted for benefit. But there is other flesh that became prohibited because of boundaries—namely, non-sacred animals slaughtered within the boundaries of the Temple courtyard—which is prohibited even for benefit.

And we reconsider the matter:

But the other one

[Rabbi Yehuda], who does not derive from an animal carcass that all prohibitions of the Torah prohibit deriving benefit from them, but instead derives this from the word “it” written with regard to an animal rendered tereifa—how does he know that non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard are prohibited for benefit?

And we answer: Rabbi Yehuda actually holds that the prohibition against deriving benefit from

non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is not a prohibition by Torah law.

Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa raises an objection

against Rav Abbahu:

But what of the sinew

of the thigh, concerning which the Merciful One said

with regard to it:

“Therefore the children of Israel may not eat the sinew of the thigh”

and nevertheless it is permitted for benefit? Evidently, wherever the verse says “they may not eat,” the prohibition against deriving benefit is not implied.

And

so

we learned: A person may send a thigh

of an animal

to a gentile, and

even though

the sinew of the thigh is inside it.

He is not required to remove the sinew before giving it to the gentile. Nor did the Sages decree that perhaps another Jew, seeing that he gave it to the gentile, would go and purchase it from the gentile and eat it as it is, relying on the assumption that the sinew had certainly been removed.

Because its location

of the sinew

is recognizable,

and people will not come to err in this matter.

And since it teaches that he gives it to a gentile, infer from it that it is permitted to derive benefit from the sinew of the thigh; this is difficult for Rabbi Abbahu.

And we answer:

Rav Abbahu holds:

The Torah permitted deriving benefit from an animal carcass, as it is written: “You shall give it to the stranger who is within your gates, that he may eat it.”

When an animal carcass was permitted, it—and its milk and its sinew—were permitted

as well, since they are included with it and are called an animal carcass.

And once we find that the Torah permitted deriving benefit from the sinew of an animal carcass, the sinew of a kosher animal was also permitted for benefit [for it necessarily follows that the phrase “they may not eat,” written with regard to the sinew, means eating alone, since the sinew of an animal carcass is permitted for benefit

Maharsha].

And we raise another difficulty: We find a dispute regarding a sinew of the thigh that was cooked together with meat, whether it renders the meat prohibited or not. One sage says that the sinew imparts flavor like meat; therefore, it renders the meat prohibited because it imparts flavor to it, and flavor is treated like the substance itself. And one sage says that the sinew does not impart flavor, and it does not render the meat prohibited.

This works according to the one who says

“there is flavor in the sinews”,

as it can properly be said that it is included in the category of an animal carcass, and it too is included in the permission to derive benefit from an animal carcass.

But according to the one who says

“there is no flavor in the sinews” -

what can be said?

Since it has no flavor of meat and is like bones, which are merely wood, it is not included in the category of an animal carcass. From where, then, would it follow that it was permitted for benefit together with it? And we answer:

Who is the one you heard say

“there is no flavor in the sinews”?

It is

Rabbi Shimon

who said so.

As

it was taught in a beraita: One who eats from the sinew of the thigh of a non-kosher animal

[which is prohibited for eating]—

Rabbi Yehuda holds him liable

to lashes

twice,

once because of the non-kosher animal and once because of the sinew of the thigh.

And Rabbi Shimon exempts him

entirely.

He is exempt from eating a non-kosher animal because he holds that “there is no flavor in the sinews.” It is therefore merely like wood, and it is not included in the prohibition against eating a non-kosher animal.

He is also exempt on account of the sinew of the thigh, because he holds that the Torah warned against the sinew of the thigh only in the case of a kosher animal whose flesh is permitted for eating. Since it is written, “They may not eat the sinew of the thigh,” this implies: but eat the flesh. However, in the case of a non-kosher animal, whose flesh is also prohibited, the Torah did not warn against its sinew.

And

Rabbi Shimon likewise prohibits

the sinew

for benefit,

because it is not included in the permission granted to an animal carcass.

And

as it was taught in a beraita: The sinew of the thigh is permitted for benefit—

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

He follows his own reasoning, for he holds that “there is flavor in the sinews.” Therefore, when an animal carcass was permitted, the sinew was included with it.

And Rabbi Shimon prohibits

the sinew for benefit. For wherever the verse says “they may not eat,” the prohibition against deriving benefit is also implied. And since “there is no flavor in the sinews,” the sinew is not included in the permission to derive benefit from an animal carcass.

And we raise another difficulty:

But what of blood, concerning which the Merciful One said

with regard to it,

“No person among you shall eat blood”,

and nevertheless it is permitted for benefit.

And

so

we learned: Both these and those

[the remnants of the blood of inner sin-offerings and outer sin-offerings] are poured upon the southern base of the altar, descend from the base to the floor through two small openings,

and truly mingle

with the water that flowed through the Temple courtyard,

and go out to the Kidron Stream.

And they are sold

these blood remnants

to gardeners

[the owners of gardens] in order

to fertilize

their gardens with them. However, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the blood without payment, because it belongs to the Temple treasury.

And

if one derived benefit from it without payment,

he misuses it.

This prohibition is only rabbinic. By Torah law, however, there is no item whose mitzva has been performed that remains subject to misuse of consecrated property. This dispute concerns misuse after the blood has emerged into the Kidron Valley. Before the blood is sprinkled, even rabbinically there is no misuse of consecrated property. Tosafot.

In any event, it teaches that blood is permitted for benefit. This is difficult for Rav Abbahu, who said: “Whenever the verse says ‘you may not eat,’ ‘you shall not eat,’ or ‘you shall not eat,’ both the prohibition against eating and the prohibition against deriving benefit are implied.”

And we answer:

Blood is different, as it is juxtaposed to water. As it is written

with regard to it:

“You shall pour it upon the ground like water.”

Just as water is permitted

for benefit,

so blood is permitted

for benefit. And we raise another difficulty:

But perhaps

the blood is

like the water poured as libations upon the altar,

which is prohibited for benefit because it was sanctified in a consecrated vessel and is sacred; and therefore you can no longer derive from this verse that blood is permitted for benefit

Tosafot.

Although the blood of consecrated offerings is not compared to water, since it is not poured like water, nevertheless, since the blood of unconsecrated animals is permitted for deriving benefit, and the words “you shall not eat” concerning it do not include deriving benefit, the same applies to the blood of consecrated offerings. Although these are two separate prohibitions, this is merely a clarification of the matter. Tosafot.

Rabbi Abbahu said: The verse is written, “You shall pour it”

“like”

“water.”

This implies that it is juxtaposed

to most water

that is permitted for benefit.

And we raise another difficulty:

Is

“most water” written

in the verse? Perhaps the verse is speaking of water used for libations.

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

Since it is written, “You shall pour it like water,” this implies that it is

like water that is poured,

namely, ordinary water that is permitted for benefit,

and not like water used for libations

upon the altar.

And we raise another difficulty:

But perhaps

blood is

like water poured before an idol,

which is prohibited for benefit as an offering to an idol.

And we answer:

There,

[with regard to water poured before an idol,]

it is also called a libation,

and not a pouring.

As it is written,

“They shall drink the wine of their libations.”