Pesachim 25a — the Talmud in English

And he objects:

What is there concerning orla, since it never had

at any time

a time of fitness [for permissibility]? For the fruit of orla is forbidden from the beginning of its formation, and it always remains in its prohibition.

Because of this severity, it was also forbidden for benefit. But can you say this

concerning meat with milk,

which is not forbidden for benefit, because

it had a time of fitness

before it was cooked with the milk.

Rather,

leavened dough on Passover proves it,

for even

though it had a time of fitness

before Passover, it is

forbidden for benefit!

And the same applies to meat with milk.

And he again objects:

What is there concerning leavened dough on Passover, since one is liable to extirpation

for eating it, and therefore it is forbidden for benefit? But can you

say

so also

concerning meat with milk,

even

though one is not liable to extirpation

for eating it, and there is in it only a prohibition of a negative commandment?!

Rather,

vineyard mixtures prove it, for one is not

liable to

extirpation

for eating them,

and

even so they are

forbidden

for benefit

!

And the same applies to meat with milk.

And he concludes the objection:

If it is so

that one is lashed for vineyard mixtures even when one does not benefit from them in the usual manner,

let us object: What is there concerning vineyard mixtures, since

to

one is lashed for them even when one does not benefit from them in the usual manner!

Therefore they are forbidden for benefit. But meat with milk, which is like the other prohibitions of the Torah, and for which one is lashed only through eating in the usual manner, should not be forbidden for benefit.

And we answer:

And Abaye

holds that there is no difficulty at all. For

what will you say [that is, from what will you object]? If

при обычном способе получения пользы, — это неверно. За него наказывают даже если человек использовал его не обычным способом. Ведь разве в

you say

that meat with milk is different,

for one is not lashed for it

through benefiting from it in the usual manner—

but this is not so. Rather, one is lashed for it even when one does not benefit from it in the usual manner. For

is it so that concerning meat with milk

“eating”

is written in it?!

After all, only the expression “do not cook” is written concerning it. And we derive the prohibition of eating it by a gzera shava. And wherever “eating” is not written, we do not require eating in the usual manner in order to be liable for lashes.

But the other one [the objector]

held

that this is why he derives it

the prohibition of eating it by the gzera shava of “holy” “holy”

from an animal carcass [and not specifically from an animal carcass, but we derive it from a torn animal.

Rashi].

For “eating” is written concerning an animal carcass. And we derive:

Just as an animal carcass

is subject to lashes only when one ate it

in the manner of its benefit, so too meat with milk

is subject to lashes only in the

manner of its benefit.

Мы учили в приведённой выше барайте: смешение посевов в винограднике служит доказательством относительно мяса с молоком: хотя за него не полагается наказание карет, оно всё же запрещено использовать! И спрашиваем: почему бы не возразить: что можно возразить относительно смешения посевов в винограднике — у него не было времени дозволенности!

And Abaye

held that although the very prohibition of eating meat with milk is derived from an animal carcass, nevertheless the gzera shava does not help to require for it the manner of benefit. For

this is why he did not write

“eating”

in the body

of the passage concerning meat with milk: in order

to say that one is lashed for it even when one does not benefit from it in the usual manner.

We learned the earlier beraita: Vineyard mixtures prove the rule concerning meat with milk, for although one is not liable to extirpation for it, it is nevertheless forbidden for benefit!

And we object:

And let us object: What is there concerning vineyard mixtures, since it never had a time of fitness!

And because of this they are forbidden for benefit. For it had entered our minds that in vineyard mixtures only the growths that grew while forbidden became forbidden. But the seeds themselves, which had existed beforehand, did not become forbidden because of the mixture. And the growths become forbidden from the moment they come into existence. This is unlike meat with milk, which was permitted until it was cooked with milk.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: This is to say that in vineyard mixtures the primary substance itself becomes forbidden!

It is not only the growths that are forbidden, but also the substance of the seeds. And the seeds themselves had a time of fitness, for before they took root in the vineyard they were permitted. And it is properly proven from them that meat with milk is forbidden for benefit, even though it had a time of fitness.

Rav Shimiya objected:

We learned:

One who transfers a perforated flowerpot

[with seeds inside it that had already grown] into a vineyard, they become like vineyard mixtures, because they draw nourishment through the perforation from the soil of the vineyard through the air.

And if

the flowerpot continued to produce growth inside the vineyard, and that addition contained the measure of one out of

two hundred

of the total of all the growths in it, then all of it is

forbidden

because of the mixture of vineyard mixtures within it!

And this is where, before they transferred it into the vineyard, there were in it 199 measures, and in the vineyard another one measure was added. In such a case the addition is forbidden, and it is not nullified by the majority of the permitted substance. Because of it, the entire mixture becomes forbidden. And as we have established, vineyard mixtures are not nullified in a mixture unless there are in the permitted substance two hundred parts corresponding to them.

And we conclude the objection: only if

the flowerpot added

to the forbidden growths is it

not

[forbidden]. But if

it did not add

one out of two hundred, it is

not

forbidden. Even though it is now drawing nourishment from the vineyard. It follows that only the growths are forbidden, but the seeds themselves do not become forbidden, even if they took root in the vineyard. And this is difficult for Rav Adda bar Ahava.

Rava said:

There is no difficulty, because

two verses are written

concerning mixtures. It is written, “You shall not sow your vineyard with mixtures, lest the fullness become sanctified.” And afterward it is written:

“The seed

that you sow and the produce of the vineyard.” And since it

is written

“the seed,” it implies that the substance of the seeds becomes forbidden.

And

since it

is written “lest it become

sanctified,

the fullness,”

it implies that only the growths [that is, “the fullness”] become forbidden.

How is this so?—

Rather, a seed that is

sown from the outset

in the vineyard becomes forbidden, even its substance,

when it takes root.

But a seed that was already

sown and existing

before it was placed in the vineyard: its substance does not become forbidden, but only the growths. And if it

added

one out of two hundred,

it is not

[merely the addition that is forbidden], and the addition renders all the seed forbidden because of the mixture of the forbidden substance. And if it

did not add, it is not

the seed itself that becomes forbidden. And whenever the addition is not more than one out of two hundred, it is nullified by the majority of the permitted substance.

Therefore, the perforated flowerpot does not become forbidden without an addition of growths, because the seeds had already been sown in the flowerpot beforehand. But Rav Adda was speaking of seed that was initially sown in the vineyard, so that it itself becomes forbidden. And it properly proves from this concerning meat with milk, which becomes forbidden for benefit even though it had a time of fitness.

Rabbi Yaakov said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: With regard to all

the prohibitions of benefit in the Torah,

one may be healed!

And even though the healing is a benefit, it is permitted to be healed through them.

Except for the wood of an ashera!

For it is forbidden to be healed through it, because it is idolatry.

And we raise a difficulty concerning this:

What are the circumstances?

If you say

that it is a sick person

who has

in him

danger, even

through

the wood of an ashera as well

he should be healed. For saving a life overrides the entire Torah.

And if

it is a sick person

who does not have

in him

danger, even

through

all the prohibitions of the Torah as well he should not

be healed! For he benefits through their healing.

And we answer:

Actually

it is speaking of a sick person

who has

in him

danger

—this is what it is discussing.

And even so, through

the

wood of an ashera he should not

be healed, because of the accessories of idolatry. For by being healed through it, he appears as one who acknowledges it. And the prohibition of idolatry is not overridden because of saving a life.

And as

it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says:

It is written, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.” And “your might” means your money.

If it is stated

“with all your soul,” why is it stated

“with all your might”?

And if it is stated

“with all your might,”

why is it stated

“with all your soul”?

And why is it necessary to write both of them? Let it write the one that is more precious. And automatically we would know that one must surrender the thing that is less precious, by a kal va-chomer.

Rather, this is to tell you: If there is a person whose body is precious to him

more

than his money, for this reason it is stated

“with all your soul”! He is obligated to surrender his life,

provided that he does not worship idolatry.

And if there is a person whose money is precious to him

more

than his body, for this reason it is stated

“with all

your might”!

He is obligated to surrender all his money, provided that he does not transgress the prohibitions of the Torah.