Pesachim 22a — the Talmud in English

That which you may throw to a dog, and that which you may not throw to a dog: this applies to all prohibitions in the Torah. But according to Rabbi Meir, that which you may throw to a dog, and that which you may not throw to a dog, refers to unconsecrated animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. ...

They are subject to an explicit prohibition,

the verse “that” is needed to include them in the prohibition against deriving benefit from them.

And the reason we learn from “that” that they are prohibited is that this verse also deals with a prohibition resulting from boundaries. For from the verse “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat,” we also derive that if a fetus extended its foreleg outside the womb at the time of slaughter, the slaughter does not permit it to be eaten. We expound specifically that this fetus, which became prohibited because it left the boundaries of its mother and was therefore prohibited, is nevertheless permitted for deriving benefit. But there is another piece of flesh that became prohibited because of boundaries—namely, unconsecrated animals slaughtered within the boundaries of the Temple courtyard—and it is prohibited even for deriving benefit.

The Gemara returns to the matter:

But the other opinion,

that of Rabbi Yehuda, who does not derive from an animal carcass that all Torah prohibitions include a prohibition against deriving benefit, but instead derives this from “that,” which is written concerning an animal torn by a wild animal—how does he know that unconsecrated animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard are prohibited?

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

unconsecrated animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is not a prohibition from the Torah.

Rav Yitzhak Nappaḥa raises an objection

to Rav Abbahu:

But what about the sciatic nerve,

concerning which the Merciful One said

about it,

“Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve”?

And nevertheless, it is permitted for deriving benefit. Evidently, wherever the Torah says “they shall not eat,” a prohibition against deriving benefit is not implied.

And

we learned:

A person may send a thigh

of an animal

to a gentile, even

though

the sciatic nerve is inside it.

He is not required to remove the nerve before giving it to the gentile. Nor did the Sages decree that perhaps another Jew will see him give it to the gentile, then go and buy it from the gentile and eat it as it is, relying on the assumption that the nerve was certainly removed.

Because its location

of the nerve

is recognizable,

and people will not come to err in this matter.

And since the Mishna teaches that he gives it to a gentile, learn from this that it is permitted to derive benefit from the sciatic nerve, which is difficult according to 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.”

And when an animal carcass was permitted, it and its milk and its sciatic nerve 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 sciatic nerve of an animal carcass, the sciatic nerve of a fit animal was also permitted for deriving benefit, since necessarily, the words “they shall not eat,” written concerning the nerve, mean eating alone—for the sciatic nerve of an animal carcass is permitted for deriving benefit

—the Maharsha.

«в нервах есть вкус»,

And we raise another difficulty: We find a dispute concerning a sciatic nerve cooked with meat, whether it prohibits the meat or not. One Sage says that the nerve imparts a taste like meat; therefore, it prohibits the meat by imparting its taste to it, since taste is treated like the substance itself. And one Sage says that the nerve does not impart taste, and therefore does not prohibit the meat.

This works well according to the one who says

“the sciatic nerves impart taste,”

for it can properly be said that the nerve is included in an animal carcass, and it is also included in the permission to derive benefit from an animal carcass.

But according to the one who says

“the sciatic nerves do not impart taste”— -

what can be said?

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

Who is the one whom you hear say

“the sciatic nerves do not impart taste”?

It is

Rabbi Shimon

who says this.

As

it was taught in a beraita: One who eats from the sciatic nerve of an impure animal

that is prohibited for eating—

Rabbi Yehuda holds him liable

to receive lashes

twice: once because of the impure animal and once because of the sciatic nerve.

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 an impure animal because Rabbi Shimon holds that the sciatic nerve does not impart taste. It is merely like wood, and is not included in the prohibition against eating an impure animal.

And he is exempt because of the sciatic nerve, since he holds that the Torah warned against the sciatic nerve only in the case of a fit animal whose meat is permitted for eating. For from the verse “They shall not eat the sciatic nerve,” it follows: Eat the meat. But in the case of an impure animal, whose meat is also prohibited, the Torah did not warn against its sciatic nerve.

And

Rabbi Shimon likewise prohibits

the nerve

for deriving benefit,

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

And

as it was taught in a beraita: The sciatic nerve is permitted for deriving benefit—

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And he follows his own reasoning, that “the sciatic nerves impart taste.” Therefore, when an animal carcass was permitted, the nerve was included with it.

And Rabbi Shimon prohibits

the nerve for deriving benefit. For wherever the Torah writes “they shall not eat,” a prohibition against deriving benefit is also implied. And since “the sciatic nerves do not impart taste,” the nerve is not included in the permission to derive benefit from an animal carcass.

And we raise another difficulty:

But what about blood, concerning which the Merciful One said

about it,

“No person among you shall eat blood”?

And nevertheless, it is permitted for deriving benefit.

And

we learned:

Both these and those

—the remnants of the blood of inner sin-offerings and of outer sin-offerings—are poured onto the southern base of the altar. They descend from the base to the floor through two small openings, and

truly mingle

with the water that flowed through the Temple courtyard,

and emerge into the Kidron Valley.

And these blood remnants

are sold

to gardeners

—the owners of gardens—so that they may

fertilize

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

And

if someone derived benefit from it without payment,

he misuses consecrated property.

In any event, the Mishna teaches that blood is permitted for deriving benefit, which is difficult for Rav Abbahu, who said: “Wherever the Torah says ‘you shall not eat,’ ‘you shall not eat,’ or ‘you shall not eat,’ both a prohibition against eating and a prohibition against deriving benefit are implied.”

And we answer:

Blood is different, because it is compared to water. As it is written

about it,

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

Just as water is permitted

for deriving benefit,

so blood is permitted

for deriving benefit. And we raise another difficulty:

Perhaps

the blood is

like the water poured as libations upon the altar,

which is prohibited for deriving benefit because it was sanctified in a Temple vessel and is consecrated. If so, you can no longer derive from this verse that blood is permitted for deriving benefit

—Tosafot.

водам, выливаемым перед идолопоклонством, которые запрещены для получения пользы как жертвоприношение идолопоклонству.

Rabbi Abbahu said: “You shall pour it

like

water” is written. This indicates that it is compared

to the majority of water,

which is permitted

for deriving benefit.

And we raise another difficulty:

Is

“the majority of water” written in the verse? Perhaps the verse is speaking about water used for libations.

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 indicates that it is

like water that is poured,

namely, ordinary water that is permitted for deriving benefit,

and

not like water used for libations

upon the altar.

And we raise another difficulty:

Perhaps

blood is

like water poured before an idol,

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

And we answer:

There too

—with regard to water poured before an idol—

it is also called a libation,

not pouring.

As it is written:

“They shall drink the wine of their libations.”