Pesachim 24b — the Talmud in English

And if he ate

a hornet

, which is both a creeping thing of the land and a creeping thing of the winged creatures,

he receives six lashes

.

Those five lashes that there are for a creeping thing of the land. And another prohibition particular to a creeping thing of the winged creatures is added upon them. As it is written: “And every creeping thing of the winged creatures is impure for you; they shall not be eaten.”

A creeping thing is something that crawls and moves, and it is visible only by doing so. But a domesticated animal and a wild animal, which are higher than the ground, are not included in the category of a creeping thing. And likewise, let us say that “it shall not be eaten” was needed concerning impure sacrificial food, in order to receive two sets of lashes for it. And again, it would not be superfluous for the prohibition of deriving benefit from all prohibitions of the Torah.

He said to him

: Rav Ashi:

Wherever it is possible to expound

every prohibition in another matter,

we expound it. And we do not establish

it as

an obligation of

additional prohibitions

. And Abaye did not say this; rather, [he said that this applies] where it was entirely superfluous and it is impossible to assign it to another matter.

And we considered it: And now that you have said that the verse

“And the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten”

is not needed for its own matter, this is understandable concerning that which is written: “And that which touches any impure thing shall not be eaten.” But “the flesh”

that

is written at

the beginning of the verse—for what do I need it?

And we answer: “the flesh” is written in order

to include wood and frankincense

of sacrificial offerings. For they receive the ritual impurity of food, despite not being food. Because of the affection of sacred things, it renders them fit to be considered food.

And furthermore, we considered it: This

“And the flesh, everyone pure may eat flesh”

that

is written at

the end

of the verse,

why do I need it?

Granted, “everyone pure may eat flesh” is needed. Because we derive from it that specifically pure flesh that was permitted to pure people: an impure person who ate it is liable for it. But an impure person who ate flesh that became impure before the sprinkling of the blood, and which was never permitted to pure people, is not liable for it on account of bodily impurity. But the first “and the flesh” is superfluous.

And we answer: We derive from “and the flesh”

to include

the

parts offered on the altar

that became impure, so that if he ate them, he transgresses two prohibitions: because of the prohibition of impurity and because of the prohibition against a non-koen eating them. For the parts offered on the altar belong to the altar, and even a koen is a non-koen with regard to them.

And we raise a difficulty: Is it from here that

the parts offered on the altar

that became impure are derived?

But is it not

from there

[from another verse] that they are

derived?

And as

it was taught

: It is written

“And the person who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that belongs to

the Lord, and his impurity is upon him, that person shall be cut off from his people.” And since it is written “that belongs to the Lord,” which is superfluous, conclude from it

to include the parts offered on the altar

for the prohibition against eating in impurity.

And we answer: From

there

we derive the prohibition against eating pure parts offered on the altar in

the bodily impurity

of the person who eats them, and to make him liable

to excision

. But from here we derive the prohibition against eating

in the impurity

of the

flesh

. For a pure person who eats even impure parts offered on the altar transgresses

a prohibition

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: For all prohibitions of the Torah, one receives lashes for them only

if he ate them in

the manner in which they are eaten

. And we considered it:

To exclude what?

And what is not in the manner in which they are eaten?

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: To exclude one who ate raw suet

[which is not cooked],

for

he is

exempt

. Because it is not ordinarily eaten raw.

Some say

: This was said with regard to prohibitions against deriving benefit. It was said thus. And thus

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: For all

prohibitions of the Torah, one receives lashes for them only

if he derived benefit from them in

the manner in which benefit is derived

. And we considered it:

To exclude what

? And what is not in the manner in which benefit is derived?

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: To exclude one who placed the suet of an ox sentenced to stoning

upon his wound

, for he is exempt

. Since this is not the manner in which benefit is derived from suet. Rather, its manner of benefit is through burning and through rubbing it into hides.

And all the more so

,

that one who eats raw suet is exempt

. For certainly this is not considered the manner of eating.

It was likewise stated: Rav Aha bar Avya said in the name of Rav Asi, who said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: One who placed the suet of an ox sentenced to stoning upon his wound is exempt. For with regard to all prohibitions of the Torah, one receives lashes for them only in their manner of benefit.

Rav Zeira said: We too have learned this: One does not receive the forty

lashes

because of orla

except for

the liquid

that comes out of olives and grapes alone!

And we infer:

But

for the liquid that comes out

of

the

figs

and

the figs and

the

pomegranates, they do not

receive lashes.

What is the reason?

Is it not because he does not eat them in their manner of benefit?

For it is not the ordinary practice to squeeze these fruits and drink their liquid. And therefore he does not receive lashes for them, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan.

Abaye said to him

: It is not a proof from there.

For

granted, if he had taught us

with regard to

the fruit itself

that one does not receive lashes when

he does not eat it in its manner of benefit

, it would properly

have been proven from this in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yohanan.

Rather, here

, the fact that one does not receive lashes for fruit juice is not because of “not in the ordinary manner.” Rather,

because

the juice squeezed from the other fruits

is merely sweat

, and if he drank from them, it is not considered as though he ate the fruit of orla.

Abaye said: Everyone agrees concerning mixed seeds of the vineyard that one receives lashes for them, even

if he ate them or benefited from them

not in the ordinary manner of benefit

.

What is the reason? —

Because it is not written concerning them

the expression

“eating.”

And we include the prohibition of benefiting from them from that which is written: “You shall not sow your vineyard with mixed seeds, lest the fullness become sacred.” For it implies that if they are mixed seeds, they become prohibited for benefit and their law is burning.

And the expression “lest” is a prohibition. And we require the manner of eating or the manner of benefit only where their prohibition is written in the language of a prohibition against eating.

He raises an objection: Isi ben Judah says

: Behold, the verse did not state a prohibition concerning meat with milk except that it is forbidden to cook them together, as it is written: “You shall not cook a kid in the milk of its mother.”

From where is it derived that meat with milk is forbidden

even in eating?

It is stated here, “For you are a holy people

to the Lord your God; you shall not cook a kid in the milk of its mother.”

And it is stated there

with regard to an animal torn by a predator,

“And you shall be holy people to Me

; and flesh torn in the field you shall not eat.” And we derive by a gzera shava from “holy” and “holy.”

Just as there

the animal torn by a predator is

forbidden

in eating,

so here

meat with milk is

forbidden

in eating.

And I do not have

from there,

but

that meat with milk is forbidden

in eating.

But from where [do I know] that it is forbidden in benefit? For behold, even a tereifa is permitted in benefit.

You have said: a kal va-chomer

from orlah.

And orlah, in which no transgression was committed

in its planting, yet it is

forbidden in benefit—

meat with milk, in which a transgression was committed

when they cooked them together and violated “You shall not cook them,”

is it not certainly the case that it should be forbidden in benefit!