Pesachim 22b — the Talmud in English

And we raised it: But

according to Hezekiah

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

for what halakhic purpose was

the

blood compared to water?

And we answer: Blood was compared to water

for

what

that

said

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba.

For we hold: Food receives ritual impurity only if it was first rendered susceptible through liquids being placed upon it. And blood too is one of the seven liquids that render food susceptible. And

And

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: From where is it derived that consecrated blood does not render food susceptible

to receive ritual impurity? —

As it is stated

concerning 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 renders susceptible.

But consecrated blood

that

is received in a vessel in order to cast it upon the altar

and is not poured out like water,

was not compared to them,

and does not render susceptible

food like water.

And further we challenge:

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

in it,

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

and nevertheless it is permitted for benefit?

And

so

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

may not extend

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 even a descendant of Noah is warned concerning a limb from a living animal, if he extends it to him, he thereby causes him to stumble.

And from the fact that it teaches as the reason for the matter that it is because of “before the blind,” and not because it is considered benefit, it follows:

indeed,

other benefit, such as giving it

to dogs,

which does not involve “before the blind,”

is permitted.

It follows that a limb from a living animal is permitted for benefit. And this is difficult for Rabbi Abbahu, who said that wherever it is written, “You shall not eat,” the prohibition of benefit is also implied.

And although from the sugya in Avoda Zara it is evident that it is discussing a limb from a living animal belonging to a gentile, nevertheless there is benefit in this. And it is not necessary to say where he takes payment for extending it; even when he extends it for free, there is benefit. Because the gentile is grateful to him for this, and it is found that he benefits on account of the prohibition. Tosafot].

And we answer:

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

“Only be steadfast not to eat the blood, for the blood is the soul.”

And “soul” means the prohibition of a limb from a living animal, as it is written concerning it, “You shall not eat the soul with the flesh.” Just as blood is permitted for benefit, so too a limb from a living animal was compared to it to permit it for benefit.

And we raise it:

But according to Hezekiah,

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

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

And we answer:

Hezekiah could say to you:

It was not the limb from a living animal that was compared to blood; rather, the opposite.

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

Just as a limb from a living animal is prohibited

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

so too blood from a living animal is prohibited

with the prohibition of “blood,” which is punishable by excision.

For concerning what is written about blood, “Only be steadfast not to eat the blood,” we have excision only for blood that emerges at the time of slaughter. For this is a continuation of the preceding verse, in which it is said, “And you shall slaughter from your cattle and from your flocks.” And this comparison comes to teach that even blood that was let from the animal while it was alive is prohibited with the prohibition punishable by excision. It is analogous to the prohibition of “a limb from a living animal,” which too applies to a limb cut from the animal while it is alive.

And which

blood from a living animal is prohibited with the prohibition punishable by excision?

This is blood from letting in which the soul departs!

There are four types of blood in blood from letting. The first blood that emerges when blood is let trickles. After it, the blood emerges in a flow. Afterwards it blackens, and afterwards it again trickles. As long as the blood flows, it is the blood through which the soul departs, and it is prohibited with the prohibition punishable by excision. But the rest of the blood is subject only to a prohibition.

And further we challenge:

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

about it,

“He shall not eat its flesh,”

and nevertheless we do not learn from this that it is prohibited for benefit. Rather, another verse is needed to prohibit it for benefit.

And

so

it was taught: From the implication of what is stated,

“The ox shall surely be stoned,”

and is it

not known that it is a carcass, and a carcass is prohibited in eating?!

And what does the verse teach by stating

“He shall not eat

its flesh”? Is it not obvious that it is prohibited because it is a carcass?

Rather,

the verse tells you that

even

if they slaughtered it after its sentence to stoning had been finalized,

it is also

prohibited

in eating.

I have derived only

that it is prohibited

in eating.

From where

is it prohibited in benefit?

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

And

what is implied

by this wording that it is prohibited for benefit?

Shimon ben Zoma says: “Clear” implies that he has no benefit whatsoever from the ox,

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

And so it is with an ox sentenced to be stoned, that its owners have no possibility of any benefit from it.

And we conclude the challenge: The reason that we prohibit it for benefit is only because the Merciful One wrote, “And the owner of the ox is clear.” But otherwise it would have been permitted for benefit. It follows,

that

if from “he shall not eat”

alone only

the prohibition of eating

would be

implied.

But

the prohibition of benefit would not

be

implied.

And this is difficult for Hezekiah, who said that “he shall not eat” implies also the prohibition of benefit. And all the more so it is difficult for Rabbi Abbahu, who said that both “he shall not eat” and “you shall not eat” imply the prohibition of benefit.

And we answer:

In fact,

“he shall not eat,”

both

the prohibition of eating and

both

the prohibition of benefit is implied.

And since this is written regarding an ox sentenced to be stoned, we certainly learn that its flesh is prohibited even for benefit. And that which it was necessary to write

“And the owner of the ox is clear” came

to prohibit

benefit from its hide.

And the verse was necessary

to prohibit its hide, because

it might enter your mind to say:

“He shall not eat its flesh”

is written: its flesh is not

[prohibited for benefit], but

its hide will not

be prohibited.

The verse teaches us

that even its hide is prohibited.

And we raise it:

And according to those tannaim who derive this verse

“And the owner of the ox is clear”

for another exposition, to

exempt the owner of a harmless ox that killed a person

from half a ransom,

or

for

a harmless ox that gored a pregnant woman and her children emerged, so that its owner is exempt from half

the value of the offspring

[and a payment of half the damage applies to a harmless ox only when an ox gored an ox]—from where do they derive

the prohibition of benefit from its hide?

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

And we answer: Benefit from its hide

is derived from

that it is written, “He shall not eat

its flesh.”

For from “its” we include even

that which is subordinate to its flesh,

namely, its hide.

But the other

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

“its”

he does not expound.

As it was taught: Shimon the Imsonite—

and some say Nahum the Imsonite—

used to expound every

“its”

in the Torah!

And every place in which “its” was written, he would include from it something whatsoever.

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

he withdrew!

Because he said: What could one include together with fear of the Lord?!

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

“its”

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 inclusions that he had derived from every “its” in the Torah.

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

to include Torah scholars.

To teach that the fear of your teacher should be upon you like the fear of Heaven.

And this tanna, who does not expound “that which is subordinate to its flesh,” agrees with Shimon the Imsonite, that nothing is to be included from “its.”

And further we challenge:

But what of foreskin, concerning which the Merciful One said

about it,

“Those with foreskin shall not eat,”

and benefit is not implied by this. Rather, another verse is necessary to prohibit it for benefit.

And

so

it was taught:

It is written,

“Those with foreskin shall not eat.”

I have derived only the prohibition of eating. From where

that he may also

not benefit from it, and that he may not dye with it

[such as with the shells of nuts of foreskin, which are also prohibited because of foreskin, since they protect the fruit],

and

that he

may not light with it

[with the oil of foreskin]

the lamp?

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

its fruit,

those with foreskin; it shall not be eaten.”

For this reason the expression “foreskin” is written three times,

to include them all:

benefit, dyeing, and lighting.

And although dyeing and lighting are included within benefit, a separate verse was necessary to prohibit them, and they cannot be derived from the other benefits. For it might enter your mind to say that dyeing is not complete benefit, since it is done only for appearance. And similarly we would have said that lighting is permitted, because its mitzva is through burning, and the benefit of lighting is incidental to its destruction. Tosafot].

And we conclude the challenge:

The reason

that we prohibit foreskin for benefit is only because

the Merciful One wrote

three times

“and you shall treat as foreskin,”

“its foreskin,”

“those with foreskin.”

Indeed, otherwise I would have said that what is written concerning it, “he shall not eat,” only

the

prohibition of eating

is

implied.

But

the prohibition of benefit is not implied.

And this is difficult for Hezekiah, who said that every “he shall not eat” implies also the prohibition of benefit. And all the more so it is difficult for Rabbi Abbahu.

And we answer:

In fact,

“he shall not eat”

in general

implies

both the prohibition of eating

and

the prohibition of benefit. But it is different there,

with foreskin,

for it is written “It shall be

to you.”

And for this reason we would not expound the “he shall not eat” written concerning it to prohibit benefit.

And

therefore

it was necessary

for the verse “and you shall treat as foreskin,” “its foreskin,” “those with foreskin.” For

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

“to you,”

the verse

“to you”

implies that

it shall be yours,

and it is permitted for you to benefit from it.

The verse teaches us

that foreskin is prohibited for benefit.

And we challenge again:

But from now on, after

these verses have been written

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

“to you”

why do I need it?

For foreskin is prohibited for benefit, and we do not apply to it “it shall be yours.”

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

as it was taught: “To you,” to include

the tree

planted for the public,

such as trees planted in the middle of the road for the needs of passersby,

which too is prohibited because of foreskin. And we include it from “to you,” which is phrased in the plural. Rabbi Judah says:

“To you,”

to exclude

that which is planted

for the public.

For the prohibition of foreskin applies only to planting by an individual. And shortly it explains this.

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

Запрет крайней плоти относится только к посадке, выполненной частным лицом. Ниже объясняется, как именно следует понимать это положение.