Talmud for Chullin 239:61
אמר ריש לקיש
- In truth, [the exception is that] the fat of a wild animal [is permitted] to a common man, and as for your difficulty from the case of the priests, [it must be remembered that] the priests enjoy this privilege from the table of the Most High.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is only to the Most High that nebelah is permitted, even though priests may enjoy it as guests of the Divine table; there is no case, however, of nebelah being permitted to a common man as of law.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni
HALAKHAH: 7This and the following paragraphs (up to Note 35) are also in Yoma 8:3 (fol. 45a), Ševu‘ot 3:2 (fol. 34b). The parallel discussion in the Babli is Ševu‘ot 22b–23a.“Second Tithe is to be used for eating,” etc. It is to be used for eating, since eating is written regarding it8Deut. 14:23.. For drinking, since drinking is included in eating. From where that drinking is included in eating? Rebbi Jonah understood if from the following (Lev. 17:12): “Therefore, I said to the Children of Israel, no person among you may eat blood.” Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, did we not state9Tosephta Tahorot 2:5.: “Congealed blood is neither food nor drink”? So we must hold as is10Fluid blood., and the Torah called it “eating.” But did we not state11Babli Ḥulin 120a, Menaḥot 21a.: “If he mashed the fat12The fat of domestic animals which from sacrifices is burned on the altar and from profane meat is forbidden as food. and sipped it, congealed the blood and ate it, he is guilty!” How does Rebbi Jonah explain? It is neither food, to accept the impurity of food, nor drink, to accept the impurity of drinks13The Tosephta Tahorot adds explicitly: “If he thought of [the congealed blood] as food, it accepts the impurities of food.” The argument of R. Jonah is not acceptable..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy