Pesachim 23a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

What is the reason of the first tanna

who expounds “for you” to include? — Because

it is written

at the beginning of the verse:

“And you shall plant

every tree yielding food.”

And

this wording is an imperative

in the singular.

But

it does not indicate the plural.

For it is not the way of many to plant. Rather, it says to each individual separately: “And you shall plant.” And since

the Merciful One wrote

“for you,”

infer from it

to include what is planted for the many,

for it too is forbidden because of orla.

And Rabbi Yehuda

held that “and

you shall plant”

written at the beginning of the verse

indicates both the plural and the singular.

And also

“for you” indicates both the singular and the plural.

And

this is an inclusion after an inclusion, and an inclusion after an inclusion serves only to exclude.

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

And furthermore we ask:

But what of teruma, concerning which the Merciful One said

about it

“And no unauthorized person shall eat what is holy,”

and we hold that teruma is permitted to an Israelite for benefit.

For one who wishes to establish for himself a Shabbat limit outside his city [so that from the place of the limit onward he will be able to walk two thousand cubits on Shabbat] places food at that location, and there it is considered the place of his residence. And he establishes an eruv only with something fit for him to eat.

And we learned: One establishes

a tehumin eruv

for a nazirite with wine.

And although wine is forbidden to a nazirite to drink, his eruv is effective. Since he can ask about his naziriteship and again become permitted to wine, the wine is properly considered food fit for him.

And

so one establishes

for an Israelite with teruma.

And although it is forbidden to him to eat, the eruv is effective for him. Since he can ask about it, and it is revealed retroactively that the teruma was [declared] in error, and everything returns to being tevel. He then separates a portion from it again, and the remainder becomes fit for eating. Thus, it is food fit for him. And although in practice he did not ask about it, and it is still teruma, he may establish an eruv with it, despite the fact that he benefits from it. For it permits him to walk an additional two thousand cubits on Shabbat. Thus, teruma is permitted for benefit, despite the fact that “he shall not eat” is written concerning it. And this is difficult for Rabbi Abbahu, who said that wherever this is written, the prohibition of benefit is also indicated.

Rav Pappa said: It is different there

with teruma,

for it says

concerning it

in the verse,

“And it shall be reckoned for you

as your teruma.”

And since it calls it “your teruma,” it indicates that

it shall be yours

to benefit from! This verse is written concerning the terumat maaser. However, even the teruma gedola is compared to it in this verse, as it is written, “like grain from the threshing floor,” which refers to the teruma gedola.

And we inquire:

But the other one [Hezekiah],

who does not infer from “he shall not eat” even the prohibition of benefit, why does he need “your teruma”? In any event, we have no reason to forbid teruma to a non-priest for benefit.

And we answer:

“Your teruma”

refers to all Israel!

And it is not intended for any exposition, but rather it is the manner of Scripture to speak this way. [

And not specifically all Israel. For the verse is speaking of terumat maaser, which the Levites separate.]

And furthermore we ask:

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

to him

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

and nevertheless wine is permitted to him for benefit.

And

as

we learned: One establishes an eruv for a nazirite

a tehumin eruv

with wine.

And although he benefits from the wine by establishing an eruv with it. Thus, it is permitted to him for benefit. And this is difficult for Rabbi Abbahu.

Mar Zutra said: It is different there

with a nazirite,

for the verse says, “All the days

of his

abstinence.”

For it indicates that even the wine forbidden to him because of his naziriteship

shall be his

to benefit from.

Rav Ashi said:

It is from here that it is indicated that wine is permitted to him for benefit. For it is written

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

And we expound:

Its growth [

the hair of his head]

is holy

to be forbidden for benefit, and 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-offerings.” But

no other thing

forbidden because of naziriteship [such as wine]

is holy

to be forbidden for benefit.

And we wonder: And from where is it derived that only the hair is forbidden for benefit?

Is something like

“and no other thing

is holy”

written?!

And we conclude:

Rather, it is clear as

he

Mar Zutra

said: “His abstinence” indicates that it shall be his to benefit from.

And furthermore we ask:

But what of hadash

before the time of the offering of the omer, when

the Merciful One said

concerning it

“Bread, parched grain, and fresh grain you shall not eat until this very day,”

and nevertheless it is permitted for benefit.

And

as

we learned:

Although it is forbidden to harvest the grain before the harvesting of the omer, for it is written concerning the omer, “the first of your harvest,” nevertheless

a person may harvest

the grain

for destruction [

unripe grain]. For it is still grass, and it is not a harvest.

And even fully ripened wheat he picks,

and feeds

it

to an animal.

Thus, hadash is permitted for benefit. And this is difficult for Rabbi Abbahu.

Rav Shemaya said: It is different there

with hadash,

for it says

concerning it

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

“your harvest”

shall be yours

to benefit from.

And we inquire:

But the other one [Hezekiah],

who does not infer from “he shall not eat” that it is forbidden for benefit, why does he need a verse to permit hadash for benefit?

And we answer:

“Your harvest”

indicates that it belongs to all Israel.

And it is not intended for any exposition, but it is the way of Scripture to speak this way.

And furthermore we ask:

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

concerning them

“It is an abomination; it shall not be eaten,”

and nevertheless they are permitted for benefit.

And

as

we learned:

It is initially forbidden 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 upon them

after the fact,

do not

need to declare them ownerless. Rather, they are

permitted to sell them to non-Jews.

Thus, they are permitted for benefit. And this is difficult both for Hezekiah and for Rabbi Abbahu, for “he shall not eat” according to everyone indicates also the prohibition of benefit.

And we answer:

It is different there, for the verse says “They shall be an abomination

for

you.”

For it indicates:

they shall be yours

to benefit from.

And we ask again:

If so, even initially it should also be permitted

to trap them in order to sell them.

And we answer:

It is different here

concerning doing so initially,

for the verse says

“they shall be.”

For it indicates:

they shall remain as they are.

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

And we inquire about it:

And according to Hezekiah,

who says that every “he shall not eat” indicates also the prohibition of benefit,

why do I need it to write

“he shall not eat,”

which indicates the prohibition of benefit,

and

because of this it was necessary

to bring [

to write]

“for you,” to permit it

for benefit?

The Merciful One should not write

“he shall not eat,”

but should write “you shall not eat.”

And

then

there would be no need

to write

“for you.” [

But according to Rabbi Abbahu it is not difficult. For it was necessary to write “he shall not eat” or “you shall not eat,” in order to forbid eating. Both of them indicate the prohibition of benefit, and in either case it would be necessary to teach the permission of benefit from “for you”].

And we answer: Hezekiah would say to you: The reason too is from here!

For from here we learn regarding elsewhere that wherever “he shall not eat” is written, the prohibition of benefit is also indicated. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote concerning creeping creatures “he shall not eat,” and afterward wrote “for you,” to permit them for benefit. This teaches us that elsewhere the prohibition of benefit is also indicated.

And furthermore we ask:

But what of leavened food, concerning which the Merciful One said

concerning it

“Leavened food shall not be eaten,”

and we find that Rabbi Yosei permitted it for benefit.

And

as

it was taught:

Leavened food, both before its time and after its time, one violates a negative commandment concerning it. And from the time that it is forbidden to eat, it is also forbidden for benefit — these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says: Consider for yourself. How can leavened food be forbidden for benefit all seven days?!

For even during its time it is permitted for benefit.

And this is difficult both for Hezekiah and for Rabbi Abbahu. For wherever “he shall not eat” is written, according to everyone the prohibition of benefit is also indicated.

And we answer:

It is different there

with leavened food,

for the verse says concerning it, “And no leaven shall be seen belonging to you.”

And since “belonging to you” is written, it indicates:

it shall be yours

to benefit from.

And the Rabbis,

who forbid leavened food for benefit, do not expound this from “belonging to you.” Rather, they expound:

“You may not see what belongs to you, but you may see

leavened food

belonging to others and belonging to the Most High.”

And we inquire about it:

But the other one [

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean], who expounds “belonging to you” to permit benefit, from where does he derive the exclusion of leavened food belonging to others and belonging to the Most High?

And we answer:

Two

“belonging to you”

are written. “No leaven shall be seen belonging to you, and no leavened food shall be seen belonging to you within all your borders.” One is to permit benefit, and one is to exclude what belongs to others.

But the other one [

the Sages] hold that both instances of “belonging to you” are necessary to exclude leavened food belonging to others:

one, concerning a non-Jew whom you have conquered

under your control,

and one, concerning a non-Jew whom you have not conquered

under your control.

For if only one “belonging to you” were written, I would say that specifically concerning leavened food of a non-Jew that is not under your control you do not violate [the prohibition]. But concerning leavened food of a non-Jew whom you have conquered, whose property is like your property, I would say that you violate “it shall not be seen.” It therefore teaches us through the other “belonging to you” that even concerning it you do not violate [the prohibition].

And since both are necessary, “belonging to you” is no longer superfluous to permit it for benefit.

But the other one [

Rabbi Yosei] holds:

three

“belonging to you”

are written.

For besides these two, it is also written in the section of Re’eh, “No leaven shall be seen belonging to you within all your borders for seven days.” Thus, one “belonging to you” is superfluous, to permit it for benefit.

But the other one [

the Sages] hold that all these three instances of “belonging to you” were written to exclude leavened food belonging to non-Jews.

One

is stated

concerning leaven, and one

is stated

concerning leavened food.

And both are necessary.

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 it were written concerning leavened food, “you may see what belongs to others,” I would say that it is permitted specifically with leavened food. But leaven, whose fermentation is strong and which ferments other doughs, I would say that the Torah warned concerning it even when it belongs to a non-Jew. Therefore, both are necessary [

Rashi,

according to

Maharshal].

And the third “belonging to you” was written to exclude even a non-Jew whom you have conquered. Therefore, no “belonging to you” is superfluous to permit it for benefit.

And we inquire:

Let us say

that this dispute between Hezekiah and Rabbi Abbahu, whether “you shall not eat” indicates also the prohibition of benefit,

is like

the dispute of

the tannaim

.

For it was taught: It is written concerning fat, “And the fat of an animal that died of itself and the fat of an animal torn by beasts

may be used for every work,

but you shall not eat it.”

What does

“for every work” teach? —

If “for every work” had not been written, but only “it may be used for work,”

I might

say that specifically

for the work of the Most High it shall be

the fat

permitted.

For example, to smear it on hides for the maintenance of the Temple. Just as the fat was permitted for consumption by the altar, so it was permitted for every work of sacred use. But

for ordinary work it shall be forbidden.

For “you shall not eat” is said concerning it, which indicates also the prohibition of benefit.

The verse therefore says: “For every work” —

these are the words of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

Rabbi Akiva says:

The verse did not need to permit the fat for benefit. Rather, it came to purify the fat of the carcass from the impurity of a carcass, and to say that only its flesh is impure.

And for this reason “for every work” is written. For

since

even without it,

I might

say that specifically

for ordinary work it shall be

the fat of the carcass

pure,

and it is permitted to use pure objects 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 they should not use it for consecrated 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 every labor”,

which is not included in the impurity of the flesh, whether for an ordinary person or for the Most High.

And

we explain:

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean

held:

For impurity and purity, a verse was not needed,

and it was obvious to him that the milk of the carcass is not included in the impurity of its flesh. And

since a verse was needed, it was for prohibition and permission;

it was necessary, for without the verse I would have said that the milk is prohibited for benefit.

And Rabbi Akiva

held:

For prohibition and permission, a verse is not needed.

And it was obvious that the milk is permitted for benefit. For what basis would one come to prohibit it? And

since a verse was needed, it was for impurity and purity!

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