Pesachim 23b — the Talmud in English

What, is it not with regard to this that they disagree:

For Rabbi Yosei the Galilean holds,

“You shall not eat”

which is written with regard to forbidden fat,

indicates both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit,

and in accordance with Rabbi Abahu. Therefore,

when the verse

“every labor”

came

to permit the fat of

an animal carcass for benefit.

And Rabbi Akiva holds,

“You shall not eat”

indicates a prohibition of eating.

But

a prohibition

of benefit

it does not indicate,

in accordance with Hezekiah. Therefore,

when the verse

“every labor”

came for impurity and purity,

it is for this that it came. But to permit benefit, no verse is needed.

And we reject this:

No,

they do not disagree in this manner.

Rather,

for

the

entire world,

“You shall not eat”

indicates both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit,

and in accordance with Rabbi Abahu. Rather, with regard to an animal carcass we find that the Torah permitted it for benefit, as it is written: “You shall give it to the stranger who is in your gates, and he shall eat it, or sell it to a gentile.”

And here they disagree with regard to this:

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean holds: When an animal carcass was permitted, it

[its flesh] alone

was permitted.

But

its forbidden fat and its sinew

were not permitted

with it, because the fat is not included within the flesh of an animal carcass. And for this reason as well, the verse did not need to purify it from the impurity of an animal carcass. Rather,

when the verse was needed

“every labor” with regard to the fat of an animal carcass,

it came to permit benefit.

And Rabbi Akiva holds:

A verse is not needed to permit the fat for benefit, because

when an animal carcass was permitted, its fat and its sinew were also permitted

with it.

And when the verse was needed

with regard to the fat,

for impurity and

for

purity,

it is for this that it came: to say that it is not included within the impurity of an animal carcass.

We considered the matter:

And

for

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean,

who holds, “its fat and its sinew were not permitted,”

we find that the Merciful One permitted the fat,

as it is written, “It shall be used for every labor.”

But

the sinew

of the thigh, with regard to which it is written, “They shall not eat,” and shall we

say that it is prohibited

for benefit!?

And we answer:

If you wish, say:

Yes,

it is indeed so, that it is

prohibited

for benefit,

and he agrees with Rabbi Shimon, brought above, who prohibits it.

And if you wish, say:

Actually, even according to Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, the sinew is permitted for benefit, because

he derives it by a kal va-chomer

from forbidden fat.

And just as forbidden fat, for eating which one is liable to karet,

is nevertheless

permitted for benefit, the sinew, for eating which one is not liable to karet,

but it is merely a prohibition of a negative commandment,

is it not all the more so

that it is permitted for benefit.

And Rabbi Shimon, who prohibits

the sinew for benefit, does not hold of this kal va-chomer. Because

one can refute it: What is so regarding forbidden fat? It is distinct in that its general prohibition was permitted in the case of an animal,

for the Torah permitted the fat of an animal, and for this reason the Torah permitted it for benefit even in the case of domesticated livestock. But can you

say

the same

with regard to the sinew, whose general prohibition was not permitted in the case of an animal,

as it is prohibited both in an animal and in domesticated livestock!

But the other one

[Rabbi Yosei the Galilean] holds that this is not a refutation, because

with regard to domesticated livestock

itself

we are saying

that it is more stringent from forbidden fat than from the sinew. For

with regard to domesticated livestock

itself,

at least, forbidden fat was not permitted

in any manner.

We considered the matter:

Now,

for it has already

been refuted

to Rabbi Abahu from

all these verses

that deal with prohibitions of eating, and we asked why they should not also be prohibited for benefit,

and we answered them

[and already resolved them]: in each of them there is some exposition to permit it for benefit. If so,

with regard to what do Hezekiah and Rabbi Abahu disagree?

But

they do not

disagree except

with regard to leaven on Passover, and according to the Rabbis

[of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean], who prohibit it for benefit. And with regard to a

stoned ox,

it is

according to everyone

prohibited for benefit.

Hezekiah derives

their prohibition

from “he shall not eat.”

And Rabbi Abahu derives it from an animal carcass!

For since the verse was needed to permit it for benefit, conclude from this that all the prohibitions of eating in the Torah are also prohibited for benefit, unless the verse explicitly states with regard to them that they are permitted.

And we conclude our difficulty:

Now, both according to this master and according to that master,

leaven and a stoned ox

are prohibited for benefit.

If so,

what difference is there between them

in practical law?

And we answer:

The difference between them is with regard to non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.

For it was explained above that according to Rabbi Judah [for whom the verse concerning an animal carcass was needed for another matter, and was not superfluous to derive from it a rule for the entire Torah], Rabbi Abahu derives that all prohibitions of eating are also prohibited for benefit from what is written with regard to a torn animal: “You shall throw it to the dog.” And we expound: “it” you throw to a dog, but all other prohibitions in the Torah you do not throw to a dog, because they are prohibited for benefit.

If so, according to

Hezekiah, who holds

that

“he shall not eat”

came

to exclude these

[leaven and a stoned ox] and to prohibit them for benefit,

“it”

written with regard to a torn animal is superfluous to him, and it came

to exclude non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard!

For you do not throw them to a dog; rather, they are prohibited for benefit.

But

Rabbi Abahu holds

that there is no distinction between “you shall not eat” and “he shall not eat.” And he derives from

“it”

which is written with regard to a torn animal

to exclude these

and to prohibit them for benefit. If so, “it” is no longer superfluous to him to exclude

non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard

and prohibit them for benefit. It follows that according to him, the prohibition of their benefit

is not from the Torah!

And they are not included among all the prohibitions in the Torah, because no expression of a prohibition of eating is written with regard to them.

A certain scholar sat before Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, and he sat and said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: From where is it derived with regard to all the prohibitions in the Torah that just as they are prohibited for eating, so too are they prohibited for benefit?

And we considered his question:

And what are they

the prohibitions in the Torah that are also prohibited for benefit? They are only

leaven on Passover and a stoned ox

[for with regard to all the prohibitions of eating besides these, the verse specified that they are permitted for benefit, as stated above].

If so, what does he need to ask, “From where are they prohibited for benefit”?

Let him derive it from “he shall not eat,”

which indicates also a prohibition of benefit, and as Hezekiah said, “so that there should not be a permission of eating in them.”

And we answer: He does not hold like Hezekiah. Rather,

“he shall not eat” indicates a prohibition of eating

alone,

it indicates to him.

But

a prohibition of benefit it does not indicate to him.

And we ask further: Even so, what does he need to ask?

Let him derive it from an animal carcass.

For since a verse was needed to permit it for benefit, conclude from this that with regard to the other prohibitions of eating, even benefit is prohibited.

And we answer:

He holds like Rabbi Judah, who says

“matters are as they are written”!

And the verse, “You shall give it to the stranger who is in your gates,” was needed for itself: to teach that the Torah permitted only giving it to a stranger and selling it to a gentile. Therefore, it is impossible to derive from it a general prohibition of benefit.

And we ask further:

If he holds like Rabbi Judah, let him derive

the prohibition of benefit with regard to leaven and a stoned ox

from where

Rabbi Abahu

derives

the method of

Rabbi Judah, from

what is written with regard to a torn animal,

“You shall throw it to the dog.”

And he expounds: “it” you throw to a dog, but you do not throw all the prohibitions in the Torah to a dog, because they are also prohibited for benefit. And throwing to a dog is benefit.

And we answer:

He holds that non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard

are prohibited for benefit

by Torah law.

And we derive this for them from this exposition of “it”: specifically, “flesh in the field, torn,” that is, a limb that passed out beyond the boundary of the mother before slaughter [whose law is that of a limb from a living animal], is permitted for benefit. But non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard [whose prohibition too is due to the boundaries of the Temple courtyard] are prohibited for benefit.

And since “it” came for this, that scholar properly asked,

from where

is it derived with regard to all the prohibitions in the Torah that they are prohibited for benefit?

And he answered: We derive it from this

which is written:

“Every sin-offering

whose blood is brought

into the Tent of Meeting to effect atonement in the Sanctuary shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire.” For the blood of the external sin-offerings is placed on the altar of the burnt-offering. And if he placed some of their blood on the golden altar, as is done with the internal sin-offerings, they became disqualified.

And this law was already written on the eighth day of the inauguration, on which the sons of Aaron burned the goat of Nahshon, which was an external sin-offering. And Moses became angry with them for burning it and said to them: “Behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary; you should surely eat it in the Sanctuary, as I commanded”! Conclude from this that had its blood been brought into the Tent of Meeting, it would have been burned by law.

It follows that the verse, “Every sin-offering whose blood is brought, and so forth, shall be burned in fire,” is superfluous and was not needed for its own subject.

And

if it does not concern its own subject, for

it has already

been written

with regard to the goat of Nahshon,

“And behold, it is being burned,”

as stated,

apply it to all the prohibitions in the Torah!

[And this principle is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, like all the principles by which the Torah is expounded: every matter that is written without need, we expound it with regard to another matter.]