Pesachim 24a — the Talmud in English

And if

this verse

does not concern eating

with regard to all the prohibitions in the Torah—for the prohibition of eating is already explicitly written concerning them—,

make it concern the prohibition of benefit

with regard to all the prohibitions of eating in the Torah.

And we raise a difficulty:

if

you establish this verse with regard to the other prohibitions of the Torah, let us say:

just as here

[in the external sin-offering whose blood was brought inside,] its law is

burning, so too all the prohibitions of the Torah

their law will be

burning.

For it is written in this verse: “It shall be burned in fire.”

It is not possible to say so.

Because

the verse says: “In the sacred place it shall be burned in fire.”

And we expound: only disqualified offerings that are

in the sacred place

have their law

burning.

But

not all the prohibitions in the Torah are subject to burning!

And only “you shall not eat,” which is written in this verse, refers to all the prohibitions in the Torah.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani raised an objection to that one of the Sages:

And

if

this

verse of

“In the sacred place it shall be burned in fire”

came for this purpose

[to prohibit all the prohibitions in the Torah in deriving benefit]

from it?

But

this

verse

is needed

for the sin-offering whose blood was brought inside,

to

teach us that it is burned in the Temple courtyard,

as

Rabbi

Shimon said.

For if it were the sin-offering of the chieftain of Naḥshon, the place of its burning would not have been specified.

As it was taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Shimon

says: That which is written,

“In the sacred place it shall be burned in fire,” teaches concerning the sin-offering

whose blood was brought inside the sacred place,

that it is burned in the sacred place

[in the Temple courtyard].

And I have only this one.

But as for the other

disqualified offerings of the most sacred order, and

disqualified

portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, from where

do we know that they are burned in the sacred place? —

The verse states: “In the sacred place it shall be burned in fire.”

From here there is a foundational principle for all the sacred offerings: the place of whose eating is the Temple courtyard; if they become disqualified, their burning too is in the Temple courtyard. And likewise the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, since they are offered in the Temple courtyard. But the flesh of offerings of lesser sanctity that became disqualified is burned outside the Temple courtyard, just as its eating is outside the Temple courtyard, for offerings of lesser sanctity are eaten throughout the entire city.

He said to him

that one of the Sages:

Rabbi Yonatan, your teacher, from another verse

rather

states it

to prohibit all the prohibitions in the Torah in deriving benefit.

From what is written:

“And if any of the flesh of the ordination-offerings or of the bread remains until the morning,”

“you shall burn the remainder in fire; it shall not be eaten, for it is sacred.”

And it was not necessary to write “it shall not be eaten,” for from that which is written, “you shall burn,” we already understand that it is not eaten. And

if it does not concern its own matter, for

already

it is written

“you shall burn the remainder in fire,” make it concern the other prohibitions in the Torah.

And if it does not concern

teaching concerning them that they are prohibited in

eating,

for it is already written concerning them that they are prohibited,

make it concern

prohibiting them in

the prohibition of benefit.

If

so, let us also say:

just as here,

with regard to the remainder, its law is

burning, so too all the prohibitions of the Torah

their law is

burning? —

It is not possible to say so.

For

the verse says

“you shall burn the remainder.”

And we exclude: only

the remainder

is

subject to burning.

But

not all the prohibitions in the Torah are subject to burning.

And we derive them through “if it does not concern” only to prohibit them in deriving benefit.

And we ask:

And

if

this

“it shall not be eaten”

that is written concerning the remainder

came for this purpose

[for all the prohibitions in the Torah]

?

But

this

verse

is needed for that of Rabbi Elazar.

For Rabbi Elazar said: That which is written concerning the remainder,

“it shall not be eaten, for it is sacred,”

came to teach that

with regard to everything that is disqualified in the sacred realm, the verse comes to impose a negative commandment for eating it!

For if only “you shall burn” were written, a prohibition of a negative commandment subject to lashes would not have been understood. And from the fact that “in the sacred place” is written, we derive this also for other disqualified offerings,

such as pigul, an offering taken outside, and an offering whose blood was spilled before the sprinkling, which are subject to a negative commandment.

Abaye said: Actually, from the first verse

“Any sin-offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to make atonement in the sacred place, you shall not eat; it shall be burned in fire,” we derive [the prohibition] for all the prohibitions in the Torah, because it is not needed for its own matter. For it is already written concerning the offering of the chieftain of Naḥshon that it is burned.

And we do not derive it from “it shall be burned in fire,” for that is needed to teach that its burning is in the sacred place.

Rather

reverse it.

Let it write

“it shall be burned in fire,” and “you shall not eat” would not be needed.

“You shall not eat”

And what does

“you shall not eat”

teach?

If it does not concern its own matter — for the prohibition of the negative commandment concerning

the

eating of the sin-offering whose blood was brought inside

is derived from Rabbi Elazar

[who expounds that all disqualifications in the sacred realm are subject to a negative commandment, from “it shall not be eaten,” which is written concerning the remainder] —

make it concern all the prohibitions in the Torah.

And if it does not concern eating,

for the prohibition of their eating is explicitly stated concerning them in their respective places,

make it concern

prohibiting them in

the prohibition of benefit.

Could it be: just as here it is burned, so too all the prohibitions in the Torah are burned?

The verse says

“you shall burn

the remainder.”

The remainder is subject to burning, but not all the prohibitions in the Torah are subject to burning.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But say:

the fact that “you shall not eat” is written concerning the external sin-offering was needed for its own matter, and it

came to assign a negative commandment specifically to its own matter.

For if

a negative commandment had not been written concerning it for its own matter, but rather

from Rabbi Elazar

[who derives it from “it shall not be eaten,” which is stated concerning all the disqualifications in the sacred realm] we would derive it, this negative commandment would be a comprehensive negative commandment, for in the one commandment “it shall not be eaten” many prohibitions were included, such as the prohibition of eating pigul, an offering taken outside, and the like. And

one is not flogged for a comprehensive negative commandment.

And for this reason a specific negative commandment of “you shall not eat” was written concerning the external sin-offering, in order to be flogged for it.

Rather Rav Pappa said: From here

we derive the prohibition of benefit for all the prohibitions of the Torah. For it is written:

“And the flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire.”

There is no need for the verse to state

“it shall not be eaten,”

because we derive it from the second tithe, as will be brought shortly.

And

what does

“it shall not be eaten”

teach?

Rather,

if it does not concern its own matter, for it is derived by a

kal

and what does the Torah say concerning the lenient second tithe:

“I have not removed from it

while impure,”

flesh of sacred offerings,

which is

more stringent

than it,

is it not certainly

the case that if it becomes impure, it is prohibited in eating!

And if you would say that warnings are not derived from a logical inference,

therefore a special verse was needed for impure sacred offerings, which are prohibited by a negative commandment.

This cannot be said.

For this is not merely a kal va-chomer. Rather,

it is a juxtaposition.

For sacred offerings were juxtaposed to the second tithe, as

it is written:

“You cannot eat in your gates your grain tithe, your wine, and your oil, and the firstborn of your cattle.”

And “your grain tithe” means the second tithe, which is eaten only in Jerusalem. And from it we derive that just as impure second tithe is prohibited, so too impure sacred offerings are prohibited.

If so,

what does

concerning impure sacred offerings

“it shall not be eaten” teach?

Rather,

if it does not concern its own matter, make it concern all the prohibitions in the Torah.

And if it does not concern eating, make it concern benefit.

Could it be: just as here it is burned, so too all the prohibitions in the Torah are burned?

The verse says

“the remainder.”

The remainder is subject to burning, but not all the prohibitions in the Torah are subject to burning.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But say:

“it shall not be eaten” is written concerning the impure offering, even though we already derive it through a juxtaposition from the second tithe. Perhaps the verse repeated the warning concerning it in order

to transgress two negative commandments for it.

For we find that wherever the verse repeated the same warning, one is flogged for it twice. For

did Abaye not say: One who eats a putita

which is a water-creeping creature

is flogged four times,

with lashes?

For one negative commandment was written concerning the water-creeping creature in Leviticus, and one negative commandment in Deuteronomy.

And two additional negative commandments are written in Leviticus concerning creeping creatures in general:

It is written: “You shall not make your souls abominable through any creeping creature that swarms.”

And it is likewise written: “You shall not defile yourselves through them.”

And these negative commandments include all types of creeping creatures, both water-creeping creatures and land-creeping creatures.

And if one ate

an ant,

which is a land-creeping creature,

he is flogged

for it

five

times,

namely, the two negative commandments written concerning all creeping creatures, and three additional negative commandments written concerning land-creeping creatures.

A. “And every creeping creature that creeps upon the earth is an abomination; it shall not be eaten.”

B. “Of every creeping creature that creeps upon the earth you shall not eat them, for they are an abomination.”

C. “And you shall not defile your souls through every creeping creature that creeps upon the earth.”