Bekhorot 19

Chapter 19

א אי הכי בשר בחלב מאי איריא דהיתה לה שעת הכושר תיפוק לי דאוכל שאתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים הוא

1 But if this is so, then in the case of [the mixture] of meat and milk, why should it be said that the reason tha it receives levitical uncleanness is because, at one time, it was fit for the uncleanness relating to food? Why not derive this from the fact that it is a food which you can give to gentiles?

ב דתניא רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום ר' שמעון בשר בחלב אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה שנאמר (דברים יד, ב) כי עם קדוש אתה לה' אלהיך ולהלן הוא אומר (שמות כב, ל) ואנשי קודש תהיון לי מה להלן אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה אף כאן אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה

2 For it has been taught: R'Simeon, the son of R'Judah says in the name of R'Simeon: [The mixture of] meat and milk is forbidden to be eaten but it is permitted for general use since [Scripture says]: For thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God.1 And, in another place, Scripture says: And ye shall be holy men unto Me.2 As in that case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Scriptural verse: And ye shall be holy, etc., referring to trefah which may be used for general purposes as stated in the context: Ye shall cast it to the dogs.');">3 it is forbidden to be eaten but it may be used generally, so here [in connection with the mixture of meat and milk] it is forbidden to be eaten but it may be used generally! - R'Simeon gives one [reason] and still another [reason].

ג חדא ועוד קאמר חדא דאוכל שאתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים הוא ועוד לדידיה נמי הרי היתה לו שעת הכושר

3 One [reason why it should receive the uncleanness of food is because it is a food] which can be given to gentiles. And still another [reason], because for [the Israelite] himself, too, there was a time [before its boiling] when it was fit to receive uncleanness.4 Now,5

ד ואם איתא דלאחר עריפה שרי רבי שמעון ליתני ומודה רבי שמעון בפטר חמור ובשר בחלב שמטמאין טומאת אוכלין

4 if there is any substance in the opinion that after the ass's neck is broken it is permitted according to R'Simeon to be used, let the above [Baraitha] state: But R'Simeon agrees in connection with the first-birth of an ass<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it can be given to gentiles for food. Hence Rabbah concludes that even R. Simeon admits that an ass whose neck was broken because its owner failed to redeem it, is forbidden to be used.');">6 and [the mixture of] meat and milk that they receive the levitical uncleanness relating to food? - [No].

ה אי דחשיב עליה הכי נמי הכא במאי עסקינן דלא חשיב עליה

5 If one had formed the intention [of using the ass as food], it would be so [as you argue]7

ו וטעמא מאי מטמאי רבנן אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרב ששת הואיל ואיסורו חישובו

6 We are dealing here, however, in a case where he had not formed such an intention.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that is the reason why the Baraitha does not include the case of an ass in the statement of R. Simeon as receiving the uncleanness of food, for ordinarily, without expressing the intention of regarding it as food, it is not considered as such.');">8 And what is then the reason that [the majority of] the Rabbis, [R'Simeon's disputants], make it receive uncleanness? - Rabbis said the following in the presence of R'Shesheth: [The reason is that] its prohibition [by Scripture] renders it important [to be regarded as food].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The very prohibition which Scripture imposes upon it indicates that it is food fit for gentiles to eat, otherwise, Scripture would not have considered it of sufficient importance to forbid it and, therefore, it receives the uncleanness relating to food even without the express Intention of using it as such.');">9 But, do we say according to the Rabbis that the reason Is, since its prohibition renders it important?

ז ולרבנן מי אמר הואיל ואיסורו חישובו והא תנן שלשה עשר דברים אמרו בנבלת עוף טהור וזו אחת מהן צריכה מחשבה ואינה צריכה הכשר

7 Have we not learnt [in a Mishnah]: Thirteen things were said with reference to the carcass of a clean bird, and this is one of them: it requires the intention [to be used as food],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if a dead reptile touched it and, in turn, it touched other food, it renders the latter unclean. This intention of using it as food is necessary, as the carcass of a clean bird has no uncleanness of touch, for it conveys uncleanness only in the gullet in the process of eating. Or, in the case where it is less in size than an olive and consequently there is no uncleanness as regards nebelah, it combines with other foods to make up the required size of an egg, in order to receive food uncleanness when it comes In contact with a dead reptile.');">10 but it does not need to be rendered fit [to receive uncleanness].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like seeds, by having water poured on it, since it already possesses a more stringent uncleanness by causing uncleanness to man and garments by eating it; v. Nid. 50b, Zeb. 105b.');">11 Now, if its prohibition signalizes it [as food] [to receive uncleanness], what need is there fo the intention of using it as food? - [The Mishnah just quoted] represents the opinion of R'Simeon, Come and hear: 'The carcass of an unclean animal in all places, and the carcass of a clean bird and the fat [of the carcass of a clean animal] in the villages,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the villages, where the inhabitants are poor and are not accustomed to eat birds or fat, the intention of using these as food to be given to gentiles is necessary before it can receive the uncleanness relating to food. With reference also to the carcass of a forbidden animal, the intention of using it as food is also necessary, for the reason that it is loathsome and, ordinarily, is not considered food even for gentiles.');">12

ח ואי איסורו חישובו למה לי מחשבה הא מני רבי שמעון היא

8 require the intention [of being used as food in order to receive uncleanness], but they do not need to be rendered fit [to receive uncleanness].13 Now, if you say that its prohibition renders it important [to receive uncleanness], what need is there for the intention [of using it as food]? - This, [too], represents the opinion of R'Simeon, Come and hear: The carcass of a clean animal14

ט תא שמע נבלת בהמה טמאה בכל מקום ונבלת עוף טהור והחלב בכפרים צריכים מחשבה ואינם צריכים הכשר ואי אמרת איסורו חישובו למה לי מחשבה הא מני רבי שמעון היא

9 in all places,15 or the carcass of a clean bird, or the fat [of a ritually slaughtered animal] in market places,16 do not require the intention [of being used as food]. Nor do they need to be rendered fit [to receive uncleanness of food].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The carcass of a clean animal, because its uncleanness is of a more stringent character, and the fat, because the very act of ritual slaughter has made it fit to receive uncleanness, since the intention of using it as food is not required, v. ibid.');">17

י תא שמע נבלת בהמה טהורה בכל מקום ונבלת עוף הטהור והחלב בשווקים אינן צריכין מחשבה ולא הכשר הא טמאה בעיא מחשבה

10 This implies that an unclean animal does require the intention [of using it as food in order to receive uncleanness].18 And should you say that this too represents the opinion of R'Simeon; surely since the second part [quoted below] is the opinion of R'Simeon, then the first part cannot be according to the opinion of R'Simeon, For the second part states: R'Simeon says: Also a camel, hare, rockbadger and swine, do not require the intention [of using them as food in order to receive uncleanness], nor need they be rendered fit [to receive uncleanness]. And R'Simeon [further] explained.

יא וכי תימא הא מני רבי שמעון היא הא מדסיפא רבי שמעון הוי רישא לאו רבי שמעון דקתני סיפא רבי שמעון אומר אף הגמל והארנבת והשפן והחזיר אינן צריכין לא מחשבה ולא הכשר ואמר רבי שמעון מה טעם הואיל ויש בהן סימני טהרה

11 What is the reason? Since [these animals mentioned] have marks of a clean animal!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the first passage with reference to the carcass of an unclean animal etc. requiring the intention of being used as food, must be in accordance with the view of the Rabbis., Hence we infer that the Rabbis do not hold that its prohibition marks it out as fit to receive food uncleanness and therefore the Baraitha quoted above by Rabbah, where the Rabbis say that the first-birth of an ass receives the uncleanness relating to food, must deal with a case where he expressed the intention of Using it as food. And R. Simeon maintains that it does not receive uncleanness, because it is food which cannot be given to a gentile to eat, I.e., It is forbidden to be used. Rabbah consequently is able to deduce from this that an ass which had its neck broken because it was not redeemed is forbidden to be used.');">19 - No, said Rabbah: All [the authorities mentioned] agree that we do not say that its prohibition [by the Scriptures] renders it important [to receive the uncleanness relating to food]. And [as to your question, what is the reason of the Rabbis]?

יב אלא אמר רבא דכולי עלמא לא אמרינן איסורו חישובו ואי דערפיה מיערף הכי נמי

12 If the ass's neck has been broken, it would really be so.20

Previous Chapter Next Chapter