Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 15, 2020 | 讻状讟 讘讻住诇讜 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

This month of learning is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

Pesachim 24

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Dan Ross in honor of the anniversary of my marriage to my chevruta for life, Rabbi Jade Sank Ross. “You are my best friend and I look forward to many more years of learning Torah together.” And by Jenna Katz in honor of her sister and brother in law Andrea and Max on the birth of their first child, a beautiful baby girl. Mazel Tov also to grandparents Ben and Felice, and great grandma Esther. May she grow in Torah and Mitzvot and be surrounded by all the love in the world.

A students brings a drasha of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to derive the fact that chametz on Pesach and an ox that killed a person are forbidden to benefit from besides that one cannot eat them. The drasha is from a verse regarding a sin offering whose blood is brought into the sanctuary (heichal). Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani rejects his proof and the student brings another proof from a verse regarding meat leftover during the days of the miluim beyond the first day in which it was allowed to be eaten. That too is rejected. Abaye brings a third verse in an attempt to derive that chametz and the ox are forbidden also to benefit – from the same verse that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi used but from different words. Rav Papa rejects his proof and brings another verse – from sacrificial meat that is impure. Ravina questions his proof but the question is resolved and rav Papa’s proof stands. The gemara derives other things from the verses about eating impure sacrificial meat and about a person who is impure who eats sacrificial meat. There are two versions about what Rabbi Avahu said regarding what is and is not included in the prohibition to eat and benefit from items, i.e. if it is eaten or used in an atypical manner.

讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛


And if it does not apply to the matter of the prohibition against eating, as the prohibition against eating these items has already been mentioned, apply it to the matter of the prohibition of deriving benefit.


讗讬 诪讛 讻讗谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘拽讚砖 讘讗砖 转砖专祝 讘拽讚砖 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖专讬驻讛


The Gemara continues: Lest one say that the verse indicates that just as here, the sin-offering is disposed of with burning, so too, all the prohibited items in the Torah must be disposed of with burning, therefore the verse said: 鈥淚n the sacred place鈥hall be burnt with fire鈥 (Leviticus 6:23). This indicates that only that which is disqualified in the sacred place is disposed of with burning, but all other prohibited items in the Torah need not be disposed of with burning.


讜讛讗讬 讘拽讚砖 讘讗砖 转砖专祝 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘拽讚砖 讘讗砖 转砖专祝 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讞讟讗转 砖砖讜专驻讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讝讜 讘诇讘讚 驻住讜诇讬 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讗诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 (讜讻诇) 讘拽讚砖 讘讗砖 转砖专祝


Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani asked: And did this verse: 鈥淚n the sacred place鈥hall be burnt with fire,鈥 come to teach this halakha? It is needed to teach in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: 鈥淚n the sacred place鈥hall be burnt with fire鈥; this taught that one must burn a disqualified sin-offering in the sacred place, and not outside the Temple. And I have only derived this, meaning the sin-offering. From where do I derive that disqualified offerings of the most sacred order and portions consumed on the altar, such as the fats of offerings of minor sanctity that become impure, are burned in the Temple courtyard? The verse states: 鈥淚n the sacred place鈥hall be burnt with fire.鈥 This indicates that any disqualified offering must be burned in the sacred place.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 专讘讱 诪讛讗讬 拽专讗 拽讗诪专 诇讛 讜讗诐 讬讜转专 诪讘砖专 讛诪诇讗讬诐 讜诪谉 讛诇讞诐 注讚 讛讘拽专 讜讙讜壮 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讚讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜砖专驻转 讗转 讛谞讜转专 讘讗砖 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇砖讗专 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛


The Sage who taught this halakha to Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said to him: Rabbi Yonatan, your teacher, said that same halakha from this verse: 鈥淎nd if the flesh of the consecration offering, or of the bread, remains until the morning, then you shall burn the leftover with fire; it shall not be eaten, because it is sacred鈥 (Exodus 29:34). As there is no need for the verse to state: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten,鈥 what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten鈥? If it does not refer to the subject matter itself, as it is already written explicitly: 鈥淭hen you shall burn the leftover with fire,鈥 which indicates that one may not eat it, refer it to the matter of the other prohibitions in the Torah. And if it does not refer to the matter of the prohibition against eating, as eating these items is explicitly prohibited, refer it to the matter of the prohibition of deriving benefit. This indicates that it is prohibited for one to derive benefit from any item that it is prohibited for him to eat.


讗讬 诪讛 讻讗谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜砖专驻转 讗转 讛谞讜转专 谞讜转专 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖专讬驻讛


The Gemara continues: Lest one say that the verse indicates that just as here, the sin-offering is disposed of with burning, so too, all the prohibited items in the Torah, from which one may not benefit, must be disposed of with burning, therefore the verse said: 鈥淵ou shall burn the leftover,鈥 indicating that the leftover sacrificial meat must be disposed of with burning; however, all other prohibitions in the Torah need not be disposed of with burning, despite the fact that it is prohibited to derive benefit from them.


讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讻讬 拽讚砖 讛讜讗 讻诇 砖讘拽讚砖 驻住讜诇 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 诇讗 转注砖讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜


The Gemara challenges: And did this phrase: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten,鈥 come to teach this prohibition against deriving benefit? This phrase is needed to teach in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said with regard to the statement in the verse: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten, because it is sacred,鈥 that the verse comes to place a negative mitzva of eating on whatever has been rendered disqualified in the sacred place. In other words, this verse teaches a general halakha that one who eats from offerings that have been disqualified in the Temple transgresses a negative mitzva and is liable to be flogged. It teaches nothing with regard to a prohibition against deriving benefit.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 诪拽专讗 拽诪讗 讜讗讬驻讜讱 讚诇讬讻转讜讘 讘讗砖 转砖专祝 讜诇讗 讘注讬 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讙讜驻讜 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛


Abaye said: Actually, derive this halakha from the first verse cited by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: 鈥淎nd any sin-offering, of which any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the sacred place, shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire鈥 (Leviticus 6:23). And reverse the construct of his exposition. Let the verse write: 鈥淚t shall be burnt with fire,鈥 and it will not need to write: 鈥淪hall not be eaten.鈥 For what purpose then does the verse state: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten鈥? If it does not apply to the subject matter itself, as that was already derived from the statement of Rabbi Elazar that whatever has been rendered disqualified in the sacred place may not be eaten, apply it to all other prohibitions in the Torah, including leavened bread on Passover and a stoned ox. And if it does not apply to the prohibition against eating, which is written explicitly, then apply it to the prohibition of deriving benefit.


讗讬 诪讛 讻讗谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛谞讜转专 讛谞讜转专 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖专讬驻讛


The Gemara asks: Lest one say that the verse indicates that just as here, the leftover sacrificial meat is disposed of with burning, so too, all the prohibited items in the Torah, from which one may not benefit, must be disposed of with burning, therefore the verse said: 鈥淵ou shall burn the leftover,鈥 indicating that the leftover sacrificial meat must be disposed of with burning; however, all other prohibited items in the Torah need not be disposed of with burning.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讚讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇 诇讗讜 砖讘讻诇诇讜转


Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And why do you hold that the phrase: 鈥淵ou shall not eat,鈥 describing the sin-offering that was sacrificed inside the Sanctuary, is not needed for other purposes? Say that this expression comes in order to designate a negative mitzva for this prohibition itself. As, if this prohibition were derived only from the source quoted by Rabbi Elazar, there will be a prohibition to eat the meat of the sin-offering whose blood was brought into the sanctuary; however, one would not be liable to be flogged for violating it, because one is not flogged for violating a negative mitzva stated in general terms. One is not flogged for violating a negative mitzva that contains several different prohibitions, such as this one, which refers to all disqualified offerings. This is because the negative mitzva is formulated too broadly. Therefore, it is possible to say that when the Torah states: 鈥淵ou shall not eat鈥 with regard to this issue, it is teaching that there is a particular prohibition here and that one is flogged for violating it. If so, the verse cannot indicate a general prohibition against deriving benefit.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讗砖 讬砖专祝 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇


Rather, this suggestion should be rejected, and Rav Pappa said that one derives this halakha from here: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. And as for the flesh, every one that is pure may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 7:19). As there is no need for the verse to state: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten,鈥 what does it mean when the verse states: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten鈥?


讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讙讜驻讜 讚讛讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讜诪讛 诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 讘注专转讬 诪诪谞讜 讘讟诪讗 讘砖专 拽讚砖 讞诪讜专 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


If it does not refer to the subject matter itself, as that can be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the second tithe, the halakhot of which are more lenient than those of offerings, then it must refer to something else. As it is possible to say: If with regard to the second tithe, which is more lenient because it does not have the status of an offering, the Torah said that when one recites the confession over the tithes, when destroying the tithes remaining in one鈥檚 possession that had not yet been given to the appropriate recipient, he says: 鈥淚 have not eaten from it in my mourning, neither have I removed it while impure鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:14), indicating that it is prohibited for one to remove tithes while impure, then with regard to consecrated meat, which is more stringent, all the more so is it not clear that it may not be eaten while a person is impure?


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬谉 诪讝讛讬专讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讛拽讬砖讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讻诇 讘砖注专讬讱 诪注砖专 讚讙谞讱 转讬专砖讱 讜讬爪讛专讱 讜讘讻专转 讘拽专讱 讜讙讜壮


And if you say that there is a general principle that we do not warn, i.e., we may not deduce a prohibition, through logical derivation alone, then one could respond that his issue is not only derived through an a fortiori inference; rather, it is also derived from an analogy based on a juxtaposition. As it is written: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows which you have vowed, nor your voluntary offerings, nor the offering of your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17). Since the verse itself juxtaposes tithes to offerings, it indicates that there is a prohibition with regard to offerings just as there is with regard to tithes.


诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讙讜驻讜 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讛谞讗讛


The Gemara continues explaining Rav Pappa鈥檚 opinion: For what purpose then does the verse state: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten鈥 with regard to impure consecrated meat? If it does not apply to the subject matter of this verse itself, as that prohibition is derived from the second tithe, then apply it to the matter of all prohibited items in the Torah. And if it does not apply to the prohibition against eating, since that is clear, apply it to the prohibition of deriving benefit.


讗讬 诪讛 讻讗谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛谞讜转专 讛谞讜转专 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖专讬驻讛


And if you say: Lest one say that the verse indicates that just as here, the meat that became impure in the Temple is disposed of with burning, so too, all the prohibited items in the Torah must be disposed of with burning, therefore the verse said: 鈥淭he leftover,鈥 indicating that the leftover sacrificial meat must be disposed of with burning; however, all other prohibited items in the Torah need not be disposed of with burning.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬诪讗 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉 诇讗讜 诪讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讻诇 驻讜讟讬转讗 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注


Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And say that this expression: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten,鈥 comes to teach not the prohibition against deriving benefit, but rather that one who transgresses this negative mitzva violates two prohibitions. And there is precedent for such an explanation, as didn鈥檛 Abaye say with regard to a parallel case: If one ate a small water creature [putita], he is flogged with four sets of lashes because one violates four prohibitions when eating such a creature? Two of these prohibitions are found in the verse that discusses all types of creeping animals: 鈥淵ou shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, neither shall you make yourselves impure with them, that you should be defiled by them鈥 (Leviticus 11:43). A third prohibition applies to creeping animals that live in the water, as the verses say: 鈥淎nd all that have neither fins nor scales鈥hey shall be a detestable thing unto you; you shall not eat of their flesh鈥 (Leviticus 11:10鈥11). A fourth prohibition is cited in the verse: 鈥淎nd whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is impure unto you鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:10).


谞诪诇讛 诇讜拽讛 讞诪砖


Similarly, if one ate an ant, he is flogged with five sets of lashes, two sets for the previously mentioned prohibitions of eating a creeping animal, a third based on the verse: 鈥淎nd every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 11:41), and a fourth based on the verse: 鈥淎ll creeping things that swarm upon the earth, them you shall not eat; for they are a detestable thing鈥 (Leviticus 11:42). A fifth prohibition is stated in the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not make yourselves impure through every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth鈥 (Leviticus 11:44).


爪讬专注讛 诇讜拽讛 砖砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讚专砖 讚专砖讬谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 讘诇讗讜讬 讬转讬专讬


If one ate a hornet, he is flogged with six sets of lashes. Since a hornet creeps along the ground, all of the previously mentioned prohibitions with regard to an ant apply to it as well. An additional prohibition is stated in the following verse: 鈥淎nd all flying insects are impure to you; they shall not be eaten鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:19). Based on this precedent, it is possible to say that the addition of the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be eaten鈥 with regard to impure meat indicates merely an additional negative mitzva for which one would be punished; however, it does not necessarily indicate a prohibition to derive benefit. Rav Ashi said to him: Anywhere that it is possible to expound a new halakha, we expound, and we do not establish the verse as containing additional negative mitzvot with regard to that same prohibition.


讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讚专讬砖讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇专讘讜转 注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛讘砖专 讻诇 讟讛讜专 讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讚住讬驻讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇专讘讜转 讗讬诪讜专讬谉


The Gemara asks: Why do I need the beginning of the verse: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 7:19)? The Gemara explains: This comes to include wood and incense; although they are not eaten, they are susceptible to ritual impurity of foods. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the end of this verse: 鈥淎nd as for the flesh, every one that is pure may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 7:19)? The Gemara answers: This comes to include the sacrificial parts of the animal offered on the altar, such as the fats; they, too, have the legal status of meat and are susceptible to ritual impurity of foods. If these portions become ritually impure and one eats them, even if he is pure, he is liable to be flogged.


讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛谞驻砖 讗砖专 转讗讻诇 讘砖专 诪讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讗砖专 诇讛壮 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讗讬诪讜专讬谉


The Gemara challenges: The halakha that these sacrificial parts can become impure and are then prohibited to be eaten is derived from there, i.e., from another source, as it was taught in a baraita: 鈥淏ut the soul that eats from the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which belong to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people鈥 (Leviticus 7:20). The added words 鈥渨hich belong to the Lord鈥 come to include these sacrificial parts, which are meant to be offered to God and not eaten by other people, within this prohibition against eating sacrificial meat when it is impure.


讛转诐 讟讜诪讗转 讛讙讜祝 讘讻专转 讛讻讗 讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讘诇讗讜


The Gemara rejects this: There, it is referring to a case of impurity of the body; if one who is ritually impure eats sacrificial parts he is punishable with karet. Here, it is referring to a case of impurity of the flesh, where the meat is impure but the person eating it is pure; one who does so is merely in violation of a negative mitzva.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讗讻讬诇转谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讗诐 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讞讬 砖驻讟讜专


After discussing the prohibitions against eating and deriving benefit from certain items, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to all prohibitions against eating in the Torah, one may be flogged for violating them only if he eats the prohibited item in its usual manner of consumption. The Gemara asks: To exclude what case did Rabbi Yo岣nan say this? Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: To exclude a case where one eats raw fat; he teaches that one who does so is exempt, since this is not the usual manner of eating it.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讛谞讗转谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讗诐 讛谞讬讞 讞诇讘 砖诇 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讻转讜 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讗讜讻诇 讞诇讘 讞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专


Some say that this is what Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to all prohibitions against deriving benefit in the Torah, one is flogged for violating them only if he derives benefit from the prohibited item in the usual manner. The Gemara asks: To exclude what case did Rabbi Yo岣nan say this? Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: To exclude a case where one placed the fat of an ox that is stoned on his wound to help it heal. He teaches that, although one generally may not derive benefit from forbidden fats, in this case he is exempt because these fats are not normally used for medicinal purposes. And all the more so one who eats raw fat is exempt, as this is certainly not an ordinary way to benefit from fat.


讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 注讜讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛谞讬讞 讞诇讘 砖诇 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讻转讜 驻讟讜专 诇驻讬 砖讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讛谞讗转谉


It was also stated that Rav A岣 bar Avya said that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If one placed the fat of an ox that is stoned on his wound for medicinal purposes, he is exempt, because with regard to all prohibitions against deriving benefit in the Torah, one is flogged for violating them only if he derives benefit from the prohibited item in its usual manner.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬谉 住讜驻讙讬谉 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 诪砖讜诐 注专诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讝讬转讬诐 讜诪谉 讛注谞讘讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讜讗讬诇讜 诪转讜转讬诐 转讗谞讬诐 讜专诪讜谞讬诐 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽讗讻讬诇 诇讛讜 讚专讱 讛谞讗转谉


Rabbi Zeira said: We, too, have also learned in a mishna that the Rabbis said: One absorbs the forty lashes due to drinking the juice squeezed from orla fruits only for that which seeps from olives, oil, and from grapes, wine. In contrast, for drinking the juice that seeps from mulberries, figs, and pomegranates one is not flogged, despite the fact that it is prohibited to consume those juices. What is the reason for this? Is it not because he is not eating them in their usual manner of deriving benefit? Generally, these fruits are eaten and not squeezed for their juice.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 驻专讬 讙讜驻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 讚专讱 讛谞讗转讜 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讝讬注讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗


Abaye said to him that this mishna does not necessarily prove this same point: Granted, had the mishna taught us the case of the fruit itself, as he is not eating it in its usual manner of deriving benefit, it would work out well. However, here, where the case is with regard to their juice, the reason he is not flogged is because it is merely moisture that drips from the fruit, which is not considered to be an essential part of the fruit.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 砖诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讻讚专讱 讛谞讗转谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讗讻讬诇讛


Abaye said: All concede with regard to prohibited mixtures of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard that one is flogged for deriving benefit from them even if he does not benefit from them in their usual manner. What is the reason for this? It is because no prohibition against eating is written about them explicitly in the Torah. Therefore, the verse is interpreted to mean that it is prohibited to benefit from them in any manner; rather, one must burn them immediately.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 砖讛讜讗 讗住讜专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讻讬 注诐 拽讚讜砖 讗转讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讜讗谞砖讬 拽讚砖 转讛讬讜谉 诇讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讗住讜专 讗祝 讻讗谉 讗住讜专


The Gemara raises an objection. Isi ben Yehuda says: From where is it derived that it is prohibited to eat meat that has been cooked in milk? It is stated here: 鈥淔or you are a sacred people unto the Lord your God. You shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21). And it is stated there: 鈥淎nd you shall be sacred men unto Me; therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field [tereifa]; you shall cast it to the dogs鈥 (Exodus 22:30). Just as there, with regard to a tereifa, it is prohibited to eat it, so too here, with regard to meat in milk, it is prohibited to eat it.


讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讘讛谞讗讛 诪谞讬谉 讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 注专诇讛 砖诇讗 谞注讘讚讛 讘讛 注讘讬专讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讛谞讗讛 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 砖谞注讘讚讛 讘讜 注讘讬专讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛


From the above comparison I have derived only that it is prohibited to eat it, as it is prohibited to eat a tereifa; from where do I derive that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it as well? You may state an a fortiori inference: If with regard to orla, through which no sin has been committed, as it is part of the ordinary growth process of the tree to produce fruit during the first three years, yet still it is prohibited to deriving benefit from it; then with regard to meat in milk, through which a sin has been committed, as the two were illicitly cooked together, is it not right that it should be prohibited to derive benefit from it?


Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

This month of learning is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 18-24 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week will continue discussing the laws of purity and impurity and the difference between the Temple and outside the...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 24: The Role of Normalcy in Floggings

Our learning today is in honor of Deborah Spector, on her birthday, dedicated by her chevruta, Cindy Barnard. More What's...

Pesachim 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 24

讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛


And if it does not apply to the matter of the prohibition against eating, as the prohibition against eating these items has already been mentioned, apply it to the matter of the prohibition of deriving benefit.


讗讬 诪讛 讻讗谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘拽讚砖 讘讗砖 转砖专祝 讘拽讚砖 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖专讬驻讛


The Gemara continues: Lest one say that the verse indicates that just as here, the sin-offering is disposed of with burning, so too, all the prohibited items in the Torah must be disposed of with burning, therefore the verse said: 鈥淚n the sacred place鈥hall be burnt with fire鈥 (Leviticus 6:23). This indicates that only that which is disqualified in the sacred place is disposed of with burning, but all other prohibited items in the Torah need not be disposed of with burning.


讜讛讗讬 讘拽讚砖 讘讗砖 转砖专祝 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘拽讚砖 讘讗砖 转砖专祝 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讞讟讗转 砖砖讜专驻讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讝讜 讘诇讘讚 驻住讜诇讬 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讗诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 (讜讻诇) 讘拽讚砖 讘讗砖 转砖专祝


Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani asked: And did this verse: 鈥淚n the sacred place鈥hall be burnt with fire,鈥 come to teach this halakha? It is needed to teach in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: 鈥淚n the sacred place鈥hall be burnt with fire鈥; this taught that one must burn a disqualified sin-offering in the sacred place, and not outside the Temple. And I have only derived this, meaning the sin-offering. From where do I derive that disqualified offerings of the most sacred order and portions consumed on the altar, such as the fats of offerings of minor sanctity that become impure, are burned in the Temple courtyard? The verse states: 鈥淚n the sacred place鈥hall be burnt with fire.鈥 This indicates that any disqualified offering must be burned in the sacred place.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 专讘讱 诪讛讗讬 拽专讗 拽讗诪专 诇讛 讜讗诐 讬讜转专 诪讘砖专 讛诪诇讗讬诐 讜诪谉 讛诇讞诐 注讚 讛讘拽专 讜讙讜壮 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讚讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜砖专驻转 讗转 讛谞讜转专 讘讗砖 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇砖讗专 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛


The Sage who taught this halakha to Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said to him: Rabbi Yonatan, your teacher, said that same halakha from this verse: 鈥淎nd if the flesh of the consecration offering, or of the bread, remains until the morning, then you shall burn the leftover with fire; it shall not be eaten, because it is sacred鈥 (Exodus 29:34). As there is no need for the verse to state: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten,鈥 what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten鈥? If it does not refer to the subject matter itself, as it is already written explicitly: 鈥淭hen you shall burn the leftover with fire,鈥 which indicates that one may not eat it, refer it to the matter of the other prohibitions in the Torah. And if it does not refer to the matter of the prohibition against eating, as eating these items is explicitly prohibited, refer it to the matter of the prohibition of deriving benefit. This indicates that it is prohibited for one to derive benefit from any item that it is prohibited for him to eat.


讗讬 诪讛 讻讗谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜砖专驻转 讗转 讛谞讜转专 谞讜转专 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖专讬驻讛


The Gemara continues: Lest one say that the verse indicates that just as here, the sin-offering is disposed of with burning, so too, all the prohibited items in the Torah, from which one may not benefit, must be disposed of with burning, therefore the verse said: 鈥淵ou shall burn the leftover,鈥 indicating that the leftover sacrificial meat must be disposed of with burning; however, all other prohibitions in the Torah need not be disposed of with burning, despite the fact that it is prohibited to derive benefit from them.


讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讻讬 拽讚砖 讛讜讗 讻诇 砖讘拽讚砖 驻住讜诇 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 诇讗 转注砖讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜


The Gemara challenges: And did this phrase: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten,鈥 come to teach this prohibition against deriving benefit? This phrase is needed to teach in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said with regard to the statement in the verse: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten, because it is sacred,鈥 that the verse comes to place a negative mitzva of eating on whatever has been rendered disqualified in the sacred place. In other words, this verse teaches a general halakha that one who eats from offerings that have been disqualified in the Temple transgresses a negative mitzva and is liable to be flogged. It teaches nothing with regard to a prohibition against deriving benefit.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 诪拽专讗 拽诪讗 讜讗讬驻讜讱 讚诇讬讻转讜讘 讘讗砖 转砖专祝 讜诇讗 讘注讬 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讙讜驻讜 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛


Abaye said: Actually, derive this halakha from the first verse cited by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: 鈥淎nd any sin-offering, of which any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the sacred place, shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire鈥 (Leviticus 6:23). And reverse the construct of his exposition. Let the verse write: 鈥淚t shall be burnt with fire,鈥 and it will not need to write: 鈥淪hall not be eaten.鈥 For what purpose then does the verse state: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten鈥? If it does not apply to the subject matter itself, as that was already derived from the statement of Rabbi Elazar that whatever has been rendered disqualified in the sacred place may not be eaten, apply it to all other prohibitions in the Torah, including leavened bread on Passover and a stoned ox. And if it does not apply to the prohibition against eating, which is written explicitly, then apply it to the prohibition of deriving benefit.


讗讬 诪讛 讻讗谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛谞讜转专 讛谞讜转专 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖专讬驻讛


The Gemara asks: Lest one say that the verse indicates that just as here, the leftover sacrificial meat is disposed of with burning, so too, all the prohibited items in the Torah, from which one may not benefit, must be disposed of with burning, therefore the verse said: 鈥淵ou shall burn the leftover,鈥 indicating that the leftover sacrificial meat must be disposed of with burning; however, all other prohibited items in the Torah need not be disposed of with burning.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讚讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇 诇讗讜 砖讘讻诇诇讜转


Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And why do you hold that the phrase: 鈥淵ou shall not eat,鈥 describing the sin-offering that was sacrificed inside the Sanctuary, is not needed for other purposes? Say that this expression comes in order to designate a negative mitzva for this prohibition itself. As, if this prohibition were derived only from the source quoted by Rabbi Elazar, there will be a prohibition to eat the meat of the sin-offering whose blood was brought into the sanctuary; however, one would not be liable to be flogged for violating it, because one is not flogged for violating a negative mitzva stated in general terms. One is not flogged for violating a negative mitzva that contains several different prohibitions, such as this one, which refers to all disqualified offerings. This is because the negative mitzva is formulated too broadly. Therefore, it is possible to say that when the Torah states: 鈥淵ou shall not eat鈥 with regard to this issue, it is teaching that there is a particular prohibition here and that one is flogged for violating it. If so, the verse cannot indicate a general prohibition against deriving benefit.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讗砖 讬砖专祝 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇


Rather, this suggestion should be rejected, and Rav Pappa said that one derives this halakha from here: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. And as for the flesh, every one that is pure may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 7:19). As there is no need for the verse to state: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten,鈥 what does it mean when the verse states: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten鈥?


讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讙讜驻讜 讚讛讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讜诪讛 诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 讘注专转讬 诪诪谞讜 讘讟诪讗 讘砖专 拽讚砖 讞诪讜专 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


If it does not refer to the subject matter itself, as that can be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the second tithe, the halakhot of which are more lenient than those of offerings, then it must refer to something else. As it is possible to say: If with regard to the second tithe, which is more lenient because it does not have the status of an offering, the Torah said that when one recites the confession over the tithes, when destroying the tithes remaining in one鈥檚 possession that had not yet been given to the appropriate recipient, he says: 鈥淚 have not eaten from it in my mourning, neither have I removed it while impure鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:14), indicating that it is prohibited for one to remove tithes while impure, then with regard to consecrated meat, which is more stringent, all the more so is it not clear that it may not be eaten while a person is impure?


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬谉 诪讝讛讬专讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讛拽讬砖讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讻诇 讘砖注专讬讱 诪注砖专 讚讙谞讱 转讬专砖讱 讜讬爪讛专讱 讜讘讻专转 讘拽专讱 讜讙讜壮


And if you say that there is a general principle that we do not warn, i.e., we may not deduce a prohibition, through logical derivation alone, then one could respond that his issue is not only derived through an a fortiori inference; rather, it is also derived from an analogy based on a juxtaposition. As it is written: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows which you have vowed, nor your voluntary offerings, nor the offering of your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17). Since the verse itself juxtaposes tithes to offerings, it indicates that there is a prohibition with regard to offerings just as there is with regard to tithes.


诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讙讜驻讜 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讛谞讗讛


The Gemara continues explaining Rav Pappa鈥檚 opinion: For what purpose then does the verse state: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten鈥 with regard to impure consecrated meat? If it does not apply to the subject matter of this verse itself, as that prohibition is derived from the second tithe, then apply it to the matter of all prohibited items in the Torah. And if it does not apply to the prohibition against eating, since that is clear, apply it to the prohibition of deriving benefit.


讗讬 诪讛 讻讗谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛谞讜转专 讛谞讜转专 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘砖专讬驻讛


And if you say: Lest one say that the verse indicates that just as here, the meat that became impure in the Temple is disposed of with burning, so too, all the prohibited items in the Torah must be disposed of with burning, therefore the verse said: 鈥淭he leftover,鈥 indicating that the leftover sacrificial meat must be disposed of with burning; however, all other prohibited items in the Torah need not be disposed of with burning.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬诪讗 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉 诇讗讜 诪讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讻诇 驻讜讟讬转讗 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注


Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And say that this expression: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten,鈥 comes to teach not the prohibition against deriving benefit, but rather that one who transgresses this negative mitzva violates two prohibitions. And there is precedent for such an explanation, as didn鈥檛 Abaye say with regard to a parallel case: If one ate a small water creature [putita], he is flogged with four sets of lashes because one violates four prohibitions when eating such a creature? Two of these prohibitions are found in the verse that discusses all types of creeping animals: 鈥淵ou shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, neither shall you make yourselves impure with them, that you should be defiled by them鈥 (Leviticus 11:43). A third prohibition applies to creeping animals that live in the water, as the verses say: 鈥淎nd all that have neither fins nor scales鈥hey shall be a detestable thing unto you; you shall not eat of their flesh鈥 (Leviticus 11:10鈥11). A fourth prohibition is cited in the verse: 鈥淎nd whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is impure unto you鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:10).


谞诪诇讛 诇讜拽讛 讞诪砖


Similarly, if one ate an ant, he is flogged with five sets of lashes, two sets for the previously mentioned prohibitions of eating a creeping animal, a third based on the verse: 鈥淎nd every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 11:41), and a fourth based on the verse: 鈥淎ll creeping things that swarm upon the earth, them you shall not eat; for they are a detestable thing鈥 (Leviticus 11:42). A fifth prohibition is stated in the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not make yourselves impure through every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth鈥 (Leviticus 11:44).


爪讬专注讛 诇讜拽讛 砖砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讚专砖 讚专砖讬谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 讘诇讗讜讬 讬转讬专讬


If one ate a hornet, he is flogged with six sets of lashes. Since a hornet creeps along the ground, all of the previously mentioned prohibitions with regard to an ant apply to it as well. An additional prohibition is stated in the following verse: 鈥淎nd all flying insects are impure to you; they shall not be eaten鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:19). Based on this precedent, it is possible to say that the addition of the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be eaten鈥 with regard to impure meat indicates merely an additional negative mitzva for which one would be punished; however, it does not necessarily indicate a prohibition to derive benefit. Rav Ashi said to him: Anywhere that it is possible to expound a new halakha, we expound, and we do not establish the verse as containing additional negative mitzvot with regard to that same prohibition.


讜讛讘砖专 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讚专讬砖讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇专讘讜转 注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛讘砖专 讻诇 讟讛讜专 讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讚住讬驻讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇专讘讜转 讗讬诪讜专讬谉


The Gemara asks: Why do I need the beginning of the verse: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 7:19)? The Gemara explains: This comes to include wood and incense; although they are not eaten, they are susceptible to ritual impurity of foods. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the end of this verse: 鈥淎nd as for the flesh, every one that is pure may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 7:19)? The Gemara answers: This comes to include the sacrificial parts of the animal offered on the altar, such as the fats; they, too, have the legal status of meat and are susceptible to ritual impurity of foods. If these portions become ritually impure and one eats them, even if he is pure, he is liable to be flogged.


讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛谞驻砖 讗砖专 转讗讻诇 讘砖专 诪讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讗砖专 诇讛壮 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讗讬诪讜专讬谉


The Gemara challenges: The halakha that these sacrificial parts can become impure and are then prohibited to be eaten is derived from there, i.e., from another source, as it was taught in a baraita: 鈥淏ut the soul that eats from the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which belong to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people鈥 (Leviticus 7:20). The added words 鈥渨hich belong to the Lord鈥 come to include these sacrificial parts, which are meant to be offered to God and not eaten by other people, within this prohibition against eating sacrificial meat when it is impure.


讛转诐 讟讜诪讗转 讛讙讜祝 讘讻专转 讛讻讗 讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讘诇讗讜


The Gemara rejects this: There, it is referring to a case of impurity of the body; if one who is ritually impure eats sacrificial parts he is punishable with karet. Here, it is referring to a case of impurity of the flesh, where the meat is impure but the person eating it is pure; one who does so is merely in violation of a negative mitzva.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讗讻讬诇转谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讗诐 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讞讬 砖驻讟讜专


After discussing the prohibitions against eating and deriving benefit from certain items, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to all prohibitions against eating in the Torah, one may be flogged for violating them only if he eats the prohibited item in its usual manner of consumption. The Gemara asks: To exclude what case did Rabbi Yo岣nan say this? Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: To exclude a case where one eats raw fat; he teaches that one who does so is exempt, since this is not the usual manner of eating it.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讛谞讗转谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讗诐 讛谞讬讞 讞诇讘 砖诇 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讻转讜 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讗讜讻诇 讞诇讘 讞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专


Some say that this is what Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to all prohibitions against deriving benefit in the Torah, one is flogged for violating them only if he derives benefit from the prohibited item in the usual manner. The Gemara asks: To exclude what case did Rabbi Yo岣nan say this? Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: To exclude a case where one placed the fat of an ox that is stoned on his wound to help it heal. He teaches that, although one generally may not derive benefit from forbidden fats, in this case he is exempt because these fats are not normally used for medicinal purposes. And all the more so one who eats raw fat is exempt, as this is certainly not an ordinary way to benefit from fat.


讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 注讜讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛谞讬讞 讞诇讘 砖诇 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讻转讜 驻讟讜专 诇驻讬 砖讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讛谞讗转谉


It was also stated that Rav A岣 bar Avya said that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If one placed the fat of an ox that is stoned on his wound for medicinal purposes, he is exempt, because with regard to all prohibitions against deriving benefit in the Torah, one is flogged for violating them only if he derives benefit from the prohibited item in its usual manner.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬谉 住讜驻讙讬谉 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 诪砖讜诐 注专诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讝讬转讬诐 讜诪谉 讛注谞讘讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讜讗讬诇讜 诪转讜转讬诐 转讗谞讬诐 讜专诪讜谞讬诐 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽讗讻讬诇 诇讛讜 讚专讱 讛谞讗转谉


Rabbi Zeira said: We, too, have also learned in a mishna that the Rabbis said: One absorbs the forty lashes due to drinking the juice squeezed from orla fruits only for that which seeps from olives, oil, and from grapes, wine. In contrast, for drinking the juice that seeps from mulberries, figs, and pomegranates one is not flogged, despite the fact that it is prohibited to consume those juices. What is the reason for this? Is it not because he is not eating them in their usual manner of deriving benefit? Generally, these fruits are eaten and not squeezed for their juice.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 驻专讬 讙讜驻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 讚专讱 讛谞讗转讜 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讝讬注讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗


Abaye said to him that this mishna does not necessarily prove this same point: Granted, had the mishna taught us the case of the fruit itself, as he is not eating it in its usual manner of deriving benefit, it would work out well. However, here, where the case is with regard to their juice, the reason he is not flogged is because it is merely moisture that drips from the fruit, which is not considered to be an essential part of the fruit.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 砖诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讻讚专讱 讛谞讗转谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讗讻讬诇讛


Abaye said: All concede with regard to prohibited mixtures of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard that one is flogged for deriving benefit from them even if he does not benefit from them in their usual manner. What is the reason for this? It is because no prohibition against eating is written about them explicitly in the Torah. Therefore, the verse is interpreted to mean that it is prohibited to benefit from them in any manner; rather, one must burn them immediately.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 砖讛讜讗 讗住讜专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讻讬 注诐 拽讚讜砖 讗转讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讜讗谞砖讬 拽讚砖 转讛讬讜谉 诇讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讗住讜专 讗祝 讻讗谉 讗住讜专


The Gemara raises an objection. Isi ben Yehuda says: From where is it derived that it is prohibited to eat meat that has been cooked in milk? It is stated here: 鈥淔or you are a sacred people unto the Lord your God. You shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21). And it is stated there: 鈥淎nd you shall be sacred men unto Me; therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field [tereifa]; you shall cast it to the dogs鈥 (Exodus 22:30). Just as there, with regard to a tereifa, it is prohibited to eat it, so too here, with regard to meat in milk, it is prohibited to eat it.


讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讘讛谞讗讛 诪谞讬谉 讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 注专诇讛 砖诇讗 谞注讘讚讛 讘讛 注讘讬专讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讛谞讗讛 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 砖谞注讘讚讛 讘讜 注讘讬专讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛


From the above comparison I have derived only that it is prohibited to eat it, as it is prohibited to eat a tereifa; from where do I derive that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it as well? You may state an a fortiori inference: If with regard to orla, through which no sin has been committed, as it is part of the ordinary growth process of the tree to produce fruit during the first three years, yet still it is prohibited to deriving benefit from it; then with regard to meat in milk, through which a sin has been committed, as the two were illicitly cooked together, is it not right that it should be prohibited to derive benefit from it?


Scroll To Top