Pesachim 24b (כד:) — the Talmud in English

And if he ate

a hornet,

which is both a creeping creature of the land and a creeping creature of the air,

he is liable to six sets of lashes.

Those five sets of lashes that apply to a creeping creature of the land, and one additional prohibition specific to a creeping creature of the air, as it is written: “And every creeping creature that flies is impure for you; they shall not be eaten.”

And a sheretz is something that crawls and moves, and it is visible only by virtue of this movement. But domesticated animals and wild animals, which are elevated above the ground, are not included in the category of sheretz.

And likewise, let us say that the phrase “it shall not be eaten” was needed with regard to impure sacrificial offerings, in order to make one liable to two sets of lashes for them. In that case, the phrase would not remain superfluous for deriving the prohibition against deriving benefit from all prohibitions of the Torah.

Rav Ashi said to him:

: Rav Ashi:

Wherever it is possible to expound

each prohibition in another matter,

we expound it, and we do not establish

it as

a liability for

superfluous prohibitions. Abaye did not say this; rather, he said it only where the verse is entirely superfluous and it is impossible to apply it to another matter.

Abaye did not say this. Rather, he said it only where the phrase was entirely superfluous and could not be assigned any other meaning.

We raise a difficulty: Now that you have said that the verse,

“And the flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten,”

was not needed for its own subject, this is understandable with regard to the phrase, “And anything that touches anything impure shall not be eaten.” But the word “the flesh”

that

is written at

the beginning of the verse—why do I need it?

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

to include wood and frankincense

of sacrificial offerings. They are susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, despite the fact that they are not food, because the sanctity of sacrificial offerings renders them fit to be considered food.

We further raise a difficulty: This phrase,

“And the flesh, anyone pure may eat flesh,”

that

is written at

the end

of the verse,

why do I need it?

Granted, the phrase “Anyone pure may eat flesh” is needed, because we derive from it that specifically pure flesh that was permitted to pure people is subject to liability when a ritually impure person eats it. But if a ritually impure person ate flesh that became impure before the blood was sprinkled, and it was never permitted to pure people, he is not liable for eating it while his body is impure. But the first occurrence of “the flesh” is superfluous.

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

to include

the

sacrificial portions

that became impure, so that if one ate them, he transgresses two prohibitions: the prohibition of impurity and the prohibition against a non-koen eating them. For the sacrificial portions are intended for the altar, and even a koen is considered a non-koen with regard to them.

And we challenge this: Is the case of impure

sacrificial portions derived from here?

that became impure are derived?

But surely

it is derived from there,

from another verse,

as follows.

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, we learn from it

to include the sacrificial portions

in the prohibition against eating while impure.

And we answer: From

there

we derive the prohibition against eating pure sacrificial portions while

the body of the person

who eats them is impure, making him liable

to karet.

But from here we derive the prohibition against eating

with regard to the impurity of

the

flesh.

A pure person who eats even impure sacrificial portions transgresses

a prohibition.

Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yohanan said: With regard to all prohibitions of the Torah, one is liable to lashes only

if he ate them in

the customary manner of eating.

We raise a difficulty:

To exclude what,

and what is considered not in the customary manner of eating?

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: To exclude a case in which one ate raw fat,

which is uncooked,

as

he is

exempt.

For it is not customary to eat it raw.

Some say: This statement

was said with regard to substances from which it is forbidden to derive benefit; this is what was said. And

so Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yohanan said: With regard to all

prohibitions of the Torah, one is liable to lashes only

if he derived benefit from them in

the customary manner of deriving benefit.

We raise a difficulty:

To exclude what,

and what is considered not the customary manner of deriving benefit?

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: To exclude a case in which one placed the fat of an ox sentenced to stoning

on his wound,

as he is exempt.

For this is not the customary manner of benefiting from fat. Rather, its customary uses are burning it and applying it in tanning hides.

And all the more so,

that

one who eats raw fat is exempt.

For it certainly is not considered the customary manner of eating.

It was also stated: Rav Aḥa bar Avya said that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: One who placed the fat of a sentenced ox on his wound is exempt, because with regard to all prohibitions of the Torah, one is liable to lashes only when deriving benefit in the customary manner.

Rav Zeira said: We have learned this as well: One does not receive forty lashes

lashes

because of orla,

except for

the liquid

that emerges from olives and grapes alone!

And we infer:

But

for liquid that emerges

from

the

berries

and

figs and

the

pomegranates, one does not

receive lashes.

What is the reason?

Is it not because one does not eat them in the customary manner of deriving benefit?

For it is not customary to squeeze these fruits and drink their liquid. Therefore, one does not receive lashes for them, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan.

Abaye said to him:

This is not proof from that source.

For

granted, if it had taught us

with regard to

the fruit itself

that one does not receive lashes when

he does not eat it in the customary manner,

it would be a valid proof

of Rabbi Yohanan’s statement.

Rather, here,

the reason one does not receive lashes for fruit juice is not that it is an “unusual manner.” Rather,

it is because

the liquid squeezed from other fruits

is merely perspiration;

if one drank it, this is not considered eating the fruit of orla.

Abaye said: Everyone agrees with regard to diverse kinds planted in a vineyard that one receives lashes for them, even

if he ate them or benefited from them

in an unusual manner.

.

What is the reason? —

Because the expression

of

“eating”

is not written with regard to them. We derive the prohibition against benefiting from them from the verse, “Lest you sow your vineyard with diverse kinds, lest the yield be sanctified.” This indicates that if they are diverse kinds, they become forbidden for benefit and must be burned.

The expression “lest” denotes a prohibition. The requirement of the customary manner of eating or deriving benefit applies only where their prohibition is written in the language of a prohibition against eating.

The following objection was raised: Isi ben Yehuda says:

The verse does not state a prohibition against meat and milk except that it is forbidden to cook them together, as it is written: “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.”

From where

do we know that meat and milk are forbidden

even for eating?

It is stated here, “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; you shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.”

And it is stated there,

with regard to an animal that suffered a mortal injury,

“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 the parallel expressions “holy” and “holy”:

Just as there,

the animal that suffered a mortal injury,

is forbidden

for eating,

so too here,

meat and milk

are forbidden

for eating.

And I have no proof

from there,

except

that meat cooked with milk is forbidden

for consumption.

But from where do I know that it is forbidden to derive benefit from it? After all, even an animal with a fatal defect is permitted for benefit.

You have said: It is a kal va-chomer

from orlah.

And with regard to orlah, in which no transgression was committed

when it was planted, it is

forbidden to derive benefit—

meat cooked with milk, with which a transgression was committed

when they were cooked together, and one violated the prohibition, “Do not cook",

is it not all the more so that it should be forbidden to derive benefit?