Pesachim 22b (כב:) — the Talmud in English

And we raised an objection:

according to Hezekiah,

who holds that wherever it is written, “You shall not eat,” the prohibition against deriving benefit is not implied, there is no need in any event to prohibit blood from being used for benefit. If so,

for what halakhic purpose was

the

blood juxtaposed to water?

And we answer: The blood was juxtaposed to water

for

that

which

said

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba.

For we have established: Food contracts ritual impurity only if it was first prepared to contract impurity by liquids being placed upon it. Blood, too, is one of the seven liquids that prepare food to contract impurity.

And

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: From where is it derived that the blood of sacrificial animals does not prepare

food to contract impurity?

As it is stated

with regard to blood,

“You shall not eat it; upon the earth you shall pour it out like water.”

And we expound: Specifically,

blood that is poured out like water prepares

food to contract impurity. But the blood of sacrificial animals,

which

is received in a vessel in order to sprinkle it on the altar

and is not poured out like water,

was not juxtaposed to water,

and does not prepare

food in the manner of water.

And furthermore, we challenge this:

But what of a limb from a living animal, concerning which it is written

in its regard,

“You shall not eat the soul with the flesh,”

and nevertheless it is permitted to derive benefit from it?

And

it was

taught in a beraita: Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that a person may not hand a cup of wine to a nazirite, and may not

hand

a limb from a living animal to the descendants of Noah?

The verse states: “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind”!

And since a descendant of Noah is also warned against eating a limb from a living animal, if one hands it to him, one thereby causes him to stumble.

And from the fact that the reason for the matter is stated to be “placing a stumbling block,” and not that it is considered deriving benefit, it follows that

this

other benefit, such as giving it

to dogs,

which does not involve “placing a stumbling block,”

is permitted.

Evidently, a limb from a living animal is permitted to be used for benefit. And this is difficult for Rabbi Abbahu, who said that wherever it is written, “You shall not eat,” the prohibition against deriving benefit is also implied. [

And although the sugya in Avoda Zara demonstrates that it is speaking of a limb from a living animal belonging to a gentile, nevertheless, there is benefit involved. This is so not only when he takes payment for handing it over, but even when he hands it over for free. Because the gentile is grateful to him for doing so. Thus, he derives benefit because of the prohibition. Tosafot].

And we answer:

A limb from a living animal is different, as it was juxtaposed to blood. As it is written:

“Only be steadfast in not eating the blood, for the blood is the life.”

And “life” refers to the prohibition against a limb from a living animal, as it is written with regard to it: “You shall not eat the soul with the flesh.” Just as blood is permitted to be used for benefit, so too a limb from a living animal was juxtaposed to it to permit deriving benefit from it.

And we ask:

But according to Hezekiah,

who does not accept the statement of Rabbi Abbahu, there is no need in any event to prohibit deriving benefit from a limb from a living animal. If so,

for what halakhic purpose was a limb from a living animal juxtaposed to blood?

And we answer:

Hezekiah could say to you:

It was not the limb from a living animal that was juxtaposed to blood; rather, the reverse is the case.

It is blood that was juxtaposed to a limb from a living animal.

Just as a limb from a living animal is prohibited

by the prohibition of “a limb from a living animal,”

so blood from a living animal is prohibited

by the prohibition against blood, which is punishable by karet.

For with regard to what is written concerning blood, “Only be steadfast in not eating the blood,” we have a karet prohibition only for blood that emerges at the time of slaughter. This is because the continuation of the verse follows the preceding verse, in which it is stated: “And you shall slaughter from your cattle and from your flocks.” This juxtaposition comes to teach that even blood extracted from an animal while it is alive is prohibited by a karet prohibition, analogous to the prohibition of “a limb from a living animal,” which likewise applies to a limb severed from an animal while it is alive.

And what is

blood from a living animal that is prohibited by karet?

It is blood from a bleeding in which the life departs!

There are four types of blood in blood drawn by bleeding. The first blood that emerges in the bleeding trickles out. After it, the blood emerges in a stream. Then it turns black, and afterward it again trickles. As long as the blood flows in a stream, it is the blood through which the soul departs, and it is prohibited by karet. The remaining blood is prohibited only by a negative commandment.

And furthermore, we challenge this:

But what of an ox sentenced to stoning, concerning which the Merciful One said

with regard to it,

“He shall not eat its flesh,”

yet we do not infer from this that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. Rather, another verse is required to prohibit deriving benefit from it.

And

it was

taught in a beraita: From the implication of the statement

“The ox shall surely be stoned,”

and

do I not know that it is an unslaughtered animal carcass, and that an unslaughtered animal carcass is prohibited to eat?!

And what does the Torah come to teach

by stating, “He shall not eat

its flesh”? It is obvious that it is prohibited because it is an unslaughtered animal carcass.

Rather,

the verse tells you that

even

if it was slaughtered after its sentence

to be stoned had been finalized, it is also

prohibited

to eat.

I have derived only

that it is prohibited

to eat.

From where

is it derived that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it?

The verse states: “And the owner of the ox shall be clear”!

And

what is the implication

of this wording that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it?

Shimon ben Zoma says:

“Clear” implies that he has no benefit whatsoever from the ox,

as a person who says to his fellow: So-and-so has emerged clear of his property, and he has no benefit from it whatsoever.

And so it is with an ox sentenced to stoning: its owner has no possibility of deriving any benefit from it.

And we conclude the challenge: The reason that we prohibit deriving benefit from it is only because the Merciful One wrote, “And the owner of the ox shall be clear.” But otherwise, it would be permitted to derive benefit from it. Evidently,

if only from “he shall not eat”

alone, only

the prohibition against eating

would be

implied.

But

the prohibition against deriving benefit would not

be

implied.

And this is difficult for Hezekiah, who says that “he shall not eat” implies the prohibition against deriving benefit as well. It is all the more difficult for Rabbi Abbahu, who says that both “he shall not eat” and “you shall not eat” imply the prohibition against deriving benefit.

And we answer:

Actually,

“he shall not eat”

implies both

the prohibition against eating and

the

prohibition against deriving benefit. Since this is written with regard to an ox sentenced to stoning, we certainly infer that its flesh is prohibited even for benefit. And the reason that it was necessary to write

the verse

“And the owner of the ox shall be clear”

is to

prohibit deriving benefit from its hide.

And

the verse was necessary to prohibit deriving benefit from its hide because

it might enter your mind to say:

“He shall not eat its flesh”

is written: Its flesh is

[prohibited for benefit], but

its hide shall not

be prohibited.

The verse therefore teaches us

that even its hide is prohibited.

And we ask:

And according to those tannaim who derive this verse

“And the owner of the ox shall be clear”

for another exposition, to

exempt the owner of a docile ox that killed a person

from half the ransom,

or

for

a docile ox that gored a pregnant woman and caused her children to emerge, so that its owner is exempt from half

the value of the offspring [

and a docile ox is liable for half-damages only when it gores an ox]—from where do they derive the prohibition against

deriving benefit from its hide?

But the verse “he shall not eat” is written only with regard to its flesh.

And we answer: The prohibition against deriving benefit from its hide

is derived from

what is written: “He shall not eat

its flesh.”

For from the word “its” we include even

that which is ancillary to its flesh,

namely, its hide.

But the other

tanna, who derives the prohibition against benefit from its hide from “And the owner of the ox shall be clear,” does not accept this exposition, “that which is ancillary to its flesh,” because

the word “et”

is not expounded.

As it was taught in a beraita: Shimon the Imsonite

—and some say Nehemiah the Imsonite—

would expound every

“et”

in the Torah!

And wherever the word “et” was written, he would use it to include something additional.

When he reached “You shall fear et the Lord your God,”

he withdrew!

For he said: What could possibly be included together with fear of the Lord?!

His students said to him: Rabbi, what will become of all the

“ets”

that you expounded?!

He said to them: Just as I received reward for expounding,

so

I receive reward for withdrawing.

And he retracted all the additional inclusions that he had derived from every “et” in the Torah.

Until Rabbi Akiva came and expounded: “You shall fear et the Lord your God”—

to include Torah scholars.

This teaches that the awe of one’s teacher should be upon him like the awe of Heaven.

And this tanna, who does not expound “that which is ancillary to its flesh,” follows the view of Shimon the Imsonite, that nothing is to be included from the word “et.”

And furthermore, we challenge this:

But what of orla, concerning which the Merciful One said

with regard to it,

“Those with foreskins shall not eat,”

which does not imply a prohibition against deriving benefit. Rather, another verse is necessary to prohibit deriving benefit from it.

And

it was

taught in a beraita:

It is written,

“Those with foreskins shall not eat.”

I have derived only the prohibition against eating. From where

is it derived that one may

neither derive benefit from it nor dye with it [

for example, with the peels of nuts of orla, which are also prohibited because of orla, since they protect the fruit],

and

that one

may not kindle with it [

with oil of orla]

a lamp?

The verse states: “And you shall treat its foreskin as foreskin; for three years it shall be for you

its fruit,

those with foreskins shall not eat.”

The expression “foreskin” is written three times in order

to include them all:

deriving benefit, dyeing, and kindling. [

Although dyeing and kindling are included in deriving benefit, a separate verse is necessary to prohibit them, and they cannot be derived from other forms of benefit. For it might enter your mind to say that dyeing is not complete benefit, since it is done merely for appearance. Likewise, we might have thought that kindling is permitted because its mitzva is performed through burning, and the benefit of kindling is incidental to its destruction. Tosafot].

And we conclude the challenge:

The reason

that we prohibit deriving benefit from orla is only

because the Merciful One wrote

three times

“and you shall treat as foreskin,”

“its foreskin,”

“those with foreskins.”

Otherwise, we would have thought that the verse written with regard to it, “he shall not eat,”

implies only

the prohibition against eating

as

implied.

But

the prohibition against deriving benefit is not implied.

And this is difficult for Hezekiah, who says that every “he shall not eat” implies the prohibition against deriving benefit as well; it is all the more difficult for Rabbi Abbahu.

And we answer:

Actually,

“he shall not eat”

in general

implies

both the prohibition against eating

and

the prohibition against deriving benefit. But the matter there,

with regard to orla, is different,

as it is written: “Those with foreskins shall be

for you.”

“For you.”

And therefore we would not expound the “he shall not eat” written with regard to it as prohibiting benefit.

And

for this reason

it was necessary

to have the verses “you shall treat as foreskin,” “its foreskin,” and “those with foreskins.” For

it might enter your mind to say: Since the verse wrote

the word

“for you,”

it implies that

it shall be yours,

and it is permitted for you to derive benefit from it.

The verse therefore teaches us

that orla is prohibited for benefit.

And we challenge this again:

If so, after

these verses have been written

“you shall treat as foreskin,” “its foreskin,” and “those with foreskins”—

why do I need

“for you”

at all?

Orla is prohibited for benefit, and we cannot interpret it as “it shall be yours.”

And we answer: It is needed for the word “for you,”

as it was taught in a beraita: “For you,” to include

the tree

planted for the public,

such as trees planted in the middle of a road for the needs of passersby, which is also prohibited because of orla. We include it from “for you,” which is expressed in the plural.

Rabbi Yehuda says: “For you,”

to exclude

a tree planted !(pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

for the public.

There is no prohibition of orla except in the case of a private planting. And shortly the Gemara explains this matter.