Pesachim 23a (כג.) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

What is the reason of the first tanna

who expounds “for you” to include it? It is because

it is written

at the beginning of the verse:

“And you shall plant

every tree yielding food.”

And

this wording is an imperative

addressed to an individual.

But

it does not imply an imperative addressed to many,

because it is not customary for many people to plant. Rather, it is stated regarding each individual separately: “And you shall plant.” And since

the Merciful One wrote

“for you,”

learn from it

to include a planting belonging to many,

as it too is prohibited because of orla.

And Rabbi Yehuda

holds that “and

you shall plant”

which is written at the beginning of the verse

implies both many and an individual.

And also

“for you” implies both an individual and many.

And

this is a case of one inclusion following another inclusion, and one inclusion following another inclusion serves only to exclude.

Therefore, we exclude planting belonging to many from the prohibition of orla.

And furthermore, we challenge:

But what of teruma, concerning which the Merciful One said

about it

“And no non-priest may eat sacred food,”

yet we have an established tradition that teruma is permitted to an Israelite for benefit.

For if someone wishes to establish a Shabbat boundary outside his city [from the boundary onward he will be able to walk two thousand cubits on Shabbat], he places food at that location, and that place is considered his place of residence for this purpose. He may establish an eruv only with food that is fit for him to eat.

And we learned: One may establish

a boundary eruv

for a nazirite with wine.

And although wine is prohibited for a nazirite to drink, his eruv is effective. Since he can request the dissolution of his nazirite vow and thereby once again become permitted to drink wine, the wine is properly considered food fit for him.

And

likewise, one may establish an eruv

for an Israelite with teruma.

And although it is prohibited for him to eat it, his eruv is effective. Since he can request the dissolution of the designation, it is revealed retroactively that the teruma had been designated in error, and everything reverts to being tevel. He can then separate a portion from it, and the remainder will be fit for eating. It follows that it is food fit for him. And although in practice he did not request the dissolution of its designation, and it remains teruma, he may establish an eruv with it, despite deriving benefit from it. For it enables him to walk an additional two thousand cubits on Shabbat. Evidently, teruma is permitted for benefit, despite the fact that it is written concerning it, “he may not eat.” This is difficult for Rabbi Abbahu, who said that wherever “he may not eat” is written, the prohibition of benefit is also implied.

Rav Pappa said: The case of teruma is different

with regard to teruma,

as the verse says

concerning it,

the Torah:

“And your

teruma

Since it calls it “your teruma,” this implies that

it shall be yours

to derive benefit from! This verse is written with regard to terumat ma’aser. However, teruma gedola is also compared to it by this verse, as it is written, “like grain from the threshing floor,” which refers to teruma gedola.

We raise the question:

But the other one

[Hezekiah], who does not infer from “he may not eat” that benefit is prohibited, for what purpose does he require “your teruma”? Even without it, we have no reason to prohibit teruma to a non-priest for benefit.

And we answer:

“Your teruma”

is stated with reference to all Israel!

It is not intended for any exposition; it is simply the manner of the verse to speak in this way. [

Not literally all Israel, since the verse is speaking of terumat ma’aser, which the Levites separate.]

And furthermore, we challenge:

But what of a nazirite, concerning whom the Merciful One said

about him

“From grape seeds to grape skin he may not eat,”

yet even so, he is permitted to derive benefit from wine.

And

as

we learned: One may establish an eruv for a nazirite

a boundary eruv

with wine.

And although he derives benefit from the wine by establishing an eruv with it, evidently he is permitted to benefit from it. This is difficult for Rabbi Abbahu.

Mar Zutra said: The case of a nazirite is different

with regard to a nazirite,

as the verse says:

“All the days of

his nazirite vow.”

This implies that even wine prohibited to him because of his nazirite vow

shall be his

to derive benefit from.

Rav Ashi said:

It can be inferred from here that he is permitted to derive benefit from wine. For it is written:

“He shall be holy; he shall let the hair of his head grow wild.”

And we expound:

His growth

[the hair of his head]

is holy

and is prohibited for benefit, and therefore it requires burning, as it is written concerning it, “and he shall place it upon the fire that is beneath the sacrifice of the peace-offering.” But

no other item

prohibited because of nazirite status [such as wine]

is holy

so as to be prohibited for benefit.

And we ask in astonishment: From where is it derived that only the hair is prohibited for benefit?

Is

“and no other item

is holy”

written?!

And we conclude:

Rather, it is clear as

he

Mar Zutra

said: “His nazirite vow” implies that it shall be his to derive benefit from.

And furthermore, we challenge:

But what of the new grain

before the time of the omer offering, concerning which

the Merciful One said

about it,

“You shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh grain until this very day,”

yet even so, it is permitted for benefit.

And

as

we learned:

Although it is prohibited to harvest grain before the harvesting of the omer, since it is written concerning the omer, “the first of your harvest,”

a person may harvest

grain

for destruction

[grain that has not fully developed], since it is still grass and this is not considered harvesting.

And he may even cut fully developed wheat

and feed

it

to an animal.

Evidently, new grain is permitted for benefit. This is difficult for Rabbi Abbahu.

Rav Shemaya said: The case of new grain is different

with regard to new grain,

as it says

about it

in the verse: “The first of your harvest.” This implies that even before the omer,

your harvest shall be yours

to derive benefit from.

to derive benefit from.

We raise the question:

But the other one

[Hezekiah], who does not expound from “he may not eat” that benefit is prohibited, why does he need a verse to permit new grain for benefit?

And we answer:

“Your harvest”

implies the harvest of all Israel.

It is not intended for any exposition; it is simply the manner of the verse to speak in this way.

And furthermore, we challenge:

But what of creeping creatures, concerning which the Merciful One said

about them

“It is detestable; it may not be eaten,”

yet even so, they are permitted for benefit.

And

as

we learned:

It is initially prohibited to trap impure animals in order to trade in them. But

hunters of animals, birds, and fish who

spread a trap for the sake of pure species, and

impure species happened to come to them

after the fact,

impure species,

need not release them. Rather, they are

permitted to sell them to gentiles.

Evidently, they are permitted for benefit. This is difficult both for Hezekiah and for Rabbi Abbahu, since “he may not eat” universally implies the prohibition of benefit.

And we answer:

The case there is different, as the verse says:

“They shall be detestable

to you.”

This implies that

they shall be yours

to derive benefit from.

We challenge again:

If so, even initially it should also

be permitted to trap them in order to sell them.

And we answer:

The case here is different

with regard to doing so initially,

as the verse says

“they shall be.”

This implies:

they shall remain as they are.

Initially, they should be left where they are and not taken from their place.

We raise the question:

And according to Hezekiah,

who says that every “he may not eat” implies the prohibition of benefit,

why did the Torah need to write

“he may not eat,”

which implies the prohibition of benefit,

and

because of this need

to bring

[to write]

“to you,” to permit them

for benefit?

The Merciful One need not have written

“he may not eat,”

but could have written, “you shall not eat.”

And

then

it would not need

to write

“to you.” [

But according to Rabbi Abbahu there is no difficulty. The Torah needed to write “he may not eat” or “you shall not eat,” in order to prohibit eating. Both expressions imply the prohibition of benefit, and in either case it would need to teach the permission of benefit through “to you.”]

And we answer: Hezekiah can say to you: My reason is also derived from here!

For from here we derive the general principle that wherever “he may not eat” is written, the prohibition of benefit is also implied. For this reason the Torah wrote concerning creeping creatures “he may not eat,” and then wrote “to you,” to permit them for benefit. This teaches us that elsewhere as well, the prohibition of benefit is implied.

And furthermore, we challenge:

But what of leaven, concerning which the Merciful One said

about it

“No leaven may be eaten,”

and we find that Rabbi Yosei permitted it for benefit.

And

as

it is taught:

With regard to leaven, whether before its time [the time from which the prohibition begins] or after its time [after Passover], one violates a negative commandment because of it. And from the time when it is prohibited to eat it, it is also prohibited for benefit—this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Consider carefully! How could leaven be prohibited for benefit throughout the seven days?!

For even during its permitted time it is permitted for benefit.

This is difficult both for Hezekiah and for Rabbi Abbahu, since wherever “he may not eat” is written, everyone agrees that the prohibition of benefit is also implied.

And we answer:

The case there is different

with regard to leaven,

as the verse says concerning it, “And no leaven shall be seen with you.”

Since “with you” is written, this implies

it shall be yours

to derive benefit from.

And the Rabbis,

who prohibit leaven for benefit, do not expound “with you” in this manner. Rather, they expound:

“Your own you may not see, but you may see

leaven belonging to

others and to the Most High.”

We raise the question:

But the other one

[Rabbi Yosei HaGelili], who expounds “with you” to permit benefit, from where does he derive the exclusion of leaven belonging to others and to the Most High?

And we answer:

Two

“with you”

are written: “No leaven shall be seen with you, and no leaven shall be seen with you within all your borders.” One serves to permit benefit, and the other to exclude leaven belonging to others.

But the other one

[the Sages] holds that both instances of “with you” are necessary to exclude leaven belonging to others:

one refers to a gentile whom you have conquered

under your control,

and one refers to a gentile whom you have not conquered

under your control.

For if only one “with you” were written, I would say that you do not violate the prohibition with regard specifically to the leaven of a gentile who is not under your control. But with regard to the leaven of a gentile whom you have conquered, whose property is like your property, one might say that you do violate the prohibition of “it shall not be seen” because of it. Therefore, the other “with you” teaches us that you do not violate the prohibition even with regard to that leaven.

And since both instances are necessary, no “with you” remains available to permit it for benefit.

But the other one

[Rabbi Yosei] holds that

three

“with you”

are written.

In addition to these two, it is also written in the portion of Re’eh: “No leaven shall be seen with you throughout all your borders for seven days.” Thus, one “with you” remains available to permit it for benefit.

But the other one

[the Sages] holds that all three instances of “with you” were written to exclude leaven belonging to gentiles.

One

is stated

with regard to leaven, and one

is stated

with regard to fermented dough.

Both are necessary. For if the Torah had written with regard to leaven that “you may see that of others,” I might have said that only the prohibition of fermented dough is excluded with regard to the leaven of a gentile, because it is not fit to eat, and there is no concern that one might come to eat it. But with regard to leaven that is fit to eat, one might say that the Torah warned against even that belonging to a gentile.

For if it were written concerning leaven that “you may see what belongs to others,” I would say that specifically the prohibition of leaven was excluded concerning leavened food belonging to a non-Jew, because it is not fit for eating, and there is no concern that one might come to eat it. But leavened food that is fit for eating, I would say that the Torah warned even concerning that belonging to a non-Jew.

And if the Torah had written with regard to leaven, “you may see that of others,” I might have said that permission applies specifically to leaven. But fermented dough, whose leavening is strong and which leavens other doughs, one might say that the Torah warned against even that belonging to a gentile. Therefore, both verses are necessary [

Rashi,

according to

Maharshal].

And the third “with you” was written to exclude even a gentile whom you have conquered. Therefore, no “with you” remains available to permit it for benefit.

We raise the question:

Shall we say that the dispute between Hezekiah and Rabbi Abbahu, whether “you shall not eat” implies the prohibition of benefit as well,

is

like

the dispute of

the tannaim?

For it is taught:

With regard to forbidden fat, it is written: “And the fat of an animal that died of natural causes and the fat of an animal torn by beasts

may be used for any work,

but you shall not eat it.”

What does

“for any work” teach?

If the Torah had not written “for any,” but only “it may be used for work,”

I might have

said that specifically

for the work of the Most High it shall be

the fat

permitted—for example, to anoint the hides used for the repair of the Temple. Just as the fat was permitted for consumption on the altar, so too it was permitted for every sacred use.

But

for ordinary use it shall be prohibited,

since it is written concerning it, “you shall not eat it,” which implies the prohibition of benefit as well.

The verse states: “For any work”—

the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Rabbi Akiva says:

The verse was not needed to permit the fat for benefit. Rather, it serves to purify the fat of an animal carcass from the ritual impurity of a carcass, teaching that only its flesh is impure.

Therefore, “for any work” is written, because

since

otherwise

I might have

said that specifically

for ordinary work it shall be

the fat of the carcass

pure,

and one may use ritually pure items with a hide smeared with it. But

for the work of the Most High it shall be

the fat

impure

with the impurity of a carcass, and therefore it may not be used for sacred property [just as we find that the impurity of consecrated property is more stringent than that of non-sacred property.

The Rishonim].

The verse states

“for any work”,

since it is not included in the impurity of the flesh, whether for ordinary use or for sacred use.

And

we explain:

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

held that

no verse was needed with regard to impurity and purity,

as it was obvious to him that the fat of a carcass is not included in the impurity of its flesh. And

when a verse was needed, it was for prohibition and permission,

as without the verse I would have said that deriving benefit from the fat is prohibited.

And Rabbi Akiva

held that

no verse was needed for prohibition and permission.

It was obvious that deriving benefit from the fat is permitted. For what basis would there be to prohibit it? And

when a verse was needed, it was with regard to impurity and purity!

To teach us that it is not included in the impurity of a carcass.