Pesachim 44

ולחזקיה למאי הלכתא איתקש דם למים לכדר' חייא בר אבא דאמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן מנין לדם קדשים שאינו מכשיר שנאמר (דברים יב, כד) לא תאכלנו על הארץ תשפכנו כמים דם שנשפך כמים מכשיר שאינו נשפך כמים אינו מכשיר

Now according to Hezekiah, in respect of what law is blood likened to water?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he holds supra ');">¹</span> - For [the law of] R'Hiyya B'Abba in R'Johanan's name. For R'Hiyya B'Abba said in R'Johanan's name: How do we know that the blood of sacrifices does not make [anything] fit [to be defiled]?

והרי אבר מן החי דכתיב (דברים יב, כג) לא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר ותניא רבי נתן אומר מנין שלא יושיט אדם כוס יין לנזיר ואבר מן החי לבני נח ת"ל (ויקרא יט, יד) ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול הא לכלבים שרי

Because it is said, thou shalt pour it out upo the earth as water: blood which is poured out as water renders fit; blood which is not poured out as water does not render fit. But what of the limb of a living animal, though it is written, thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 23. This is interpreted as an injunction against eating a limb torn from a living animal.');">²</span> yet it was taught.

שאני אבר מן החי דאיתקש לדם דכתיב (דברים יב, כג) רק חזק לבלתי אכול הדם כי הדם הוא הנפש

R'Nathan said: How do we know that a man must not hold out a cup of wine to a nazirite or the limb of a living animal to the children of Noah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The technical designation for all but Jews. A nazirite must not drink wine, nor may non-Jews eat of the limb of a living animal.');">³</span> Because it is stated, thou shalt not put a stumbling-block before the blind.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX. 14. This is understood metaphorically: do not lead anyone to sin.');">⁴</span> This implies that [giving] to dogs is permitted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though this is benefit.');">⁵</span>

ולחזקיה למאי הלכתא איתקש אבר מן החי לדם אמר לך דם הוא דאיתקש לאבר מן החי מה אבר מן החי אסור אף דם מן החי אסור ואי זה זה דם הקזה שהנפש יוצאה בו

- The limb of a living animal is different, because it is assimilated to blood, as it is written, Only be steadfast in not eating the blood; for the blood i the life.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 23.');">⁶</span> Then according to Hezekiah, in respect of what law is the limb from a living animal assimilated to blood?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. p. 99 n. 10.; the same applies here.');">⁷</span> - He can answer you: It is blood which is assimilated to the limb from a living animal:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not the reverse, as the order indicates.');">⁸</span>

והרי שור הנסקל דרחמנא אמר (שמות כא, כח) לא יאכל את בשרו ותניא ממשמע שנאמר (שמות כא, כח) סקול יסקל השור איני יודע שהיא נבלה ונבלה אסורה באכילה ומה ת"ל לא יאכל מגיד לך הכתוב שאם שחטו לאחר שנגמר (את) דינו אסור

just as a limb from a living animal is forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the prohibition that is stated in its case, i.e., for eating only.');">⁹</span> so is the blood from a living animal forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the prohibition relevant to blood, viz., an injunction which involves kareth (q. v. Glos.) .');">¹⁰</span> and which [blood] is that?

אין לי אלא באכילה בהנאה מנין ת"ל (שמות כא, כח) ובעל השור נקי מאי משמע שמעון בן זומא אומר כאדם שאומר לחבירו יצא פלוני נקי מנכסיו ואין לו בהם הנאה של כלום

The blood of arteries with which life goes out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Ker. 22a.');">¹¹</span> But what of the ox that is stoned, though the Divine Law saith, its flesh shall not be eaten,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 28. Thus it is expressed in the passive, which on all views intimates that general benefit is forbidden.');">¹²</span> yet it was taught: From the implication of the verse, the ox shall be surely stoned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">¹³</span>

טעמא דכתב ובעל השור נקי דאי מלא יאכל איסור אכילה משמע איסור הנאה לא משמע

do I not know that it is nebelah, and nebelah is forbidden as food? Why then is it stated, 'and its flesh shall not be eaten'? The Writ informs us that if it was [ritually] slaughtered after its trial was ended,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., after sentence.');">¹⁴</span>

לעולם לא יאכל איסור אכילה ואיסור הנאה משמע ובעל השור נקי להנאת עורו הוא דאתא ואיצטריך ס"ד אמינא לא יאכל את בשרו כתיב בשרו אין עורו לא קמ"ל

it is forbidden. I only know this in respect o eating; how do we know it in respect of benefit? From the verse, but the owner of the ox shall be clear.

ולהנך תנאי דמפקי ליה להאי קרא לדרשה אחרינא לחצי כופר ולדמי וולדות הנאת עורו מנא להו נפקא להו מאת בשרו את הטפל לבשרו

How is this implied? Simeon B'Zoma said: As a man may say to his friend, 'So-and-so has gone out clear from his property, and has no benefit whatsoever from it.' Thus the reason is that 'but the owner of the ox shall be clear' is written; for if [we deduced] from 'it shall not be eaten' [alone], that would imply a prohibition of eating, but not a prohibition of benefit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 100, n. 11.');">¹⁵</span>

ואידך את לא דריש

- In truth 'it shall not be eaten' implies a prohibition of eating an a prohibition of benefit, and as to 'but the owner of the ox shall be clear,' that is stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'comes'.');">¹⁶</span> in respect of the use of its skin;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teaching, even that is forbidden.');">¹⁷</span> and it is necessary: you would think that I might argue, 'his flesh shall not be eaten' is written [thus] only his flesh [is forbidden], but not his skin; therefore we are informed [otherwise].

כדתניא שמעון העמסוני ואמרי לה נחמיה העמסוני היה דורש כל אתים שבתורה כיון שהגיע (דברים ו, יג) לאת ה' אלהיך תירא פירש אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי כל אתים שדרשת מה תהא עליהן אמר להם כשם שקבלתי שכר על הדרישה כך אני מקבל שכר על הפרישה עד שבא ר"ע ודרש את ה' אלהיך תירא לרבות תלמידי חכמים

But according to those Tannaim who employ this verse for a different exegesis. [viz.] for half ransom and damages for children,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ransom, v. Ex. XXI, 28-30, 35f; it might be thought, by comparing these verses, that half ransom is payable in this case. (Damages for child, v. ibid. 22) . I might think that the same holds good when the damage is done by a man's ox Therefore 'but the owner of the ox shall be clear (E.V. quit) ' teaches that he is free from both.');">¹⁸</span> how do they know [that] the use of the hide [is forbidden]?

והרי ערלה דרחמנא אמר (ויקרא יט, כג) ערלים לא יאכל ותניא ערלים לא יאכל אין לי אלא איסור אכילה מנין שלא יהנה ממנו שלא יצבע בו ולא ידליק בו את הנר ת"ל וערלתם ערלתו ערלים לא יאכל לרבות את כולם

They infer it from eth besaro [his flesh],meaning, that which is joined to its flesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Interpreting 'eth', the sign of the acc., as an extending particle.');">¹⁹</span> And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What does 'eth' teach on this view?');">²⁰</span> - He does not interpreteth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As indicating extensions or having any particular significance apart from its grammatical one.');">²¹</span>

טעמא דכתב רחמנא וערלתם ערלתו ערלים הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא איסור אכילה משמע איסור הנאה לא משמע

As it was taught, Simeon Imsoni<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jast. conjectures that it may mean from Amasia, in Pontus.');">²²</span> - others state, Nehemiah Imsoni- interpreted every eth in the Torah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As an extending particle.');">²³</span> [but] as soon as he came to, thou shalt fear [eth] the Lord thy God,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. VI, 13.');">²⁴</span>

לעולם לא יאכל משמע בין איסור אכילה בין איסור הנאה ושאני התם דכתיב לכם ואצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל וכתב לכם שלכם יהא קמשמע לן

he desisted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Holding it impossible that this fear should extend to another.');">²⁵</span> Said his disciples to him, 'Master, what is to happen with all the ethin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pl. of eth.');">²⁶</span> which you have interpreted? ' 'Just as I received reward for interpreting them', he replied, 'so will I receive reward for retracting'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'separating' (myself from them) . Since the eth in one verse does not signify extension, it cannot do so elsewhere.');">²⁷</span>

ואלא השתא דכתיבי הנך קראי לכם למה לי לכדתניא לכם לרבות את הנטוע

Subsequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until'.');">²⁸</span> R'Akiba came and taught:Thou shalt fear[eth] the Lord thy God is to include scholars.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are the depositaries of God's word; hence the verse exhorts obedience to religious authority.');">²⁹</span> But there is 'orlah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Glos.');">³⁰</span> whereof the Merciful One saith, Three years shall it be forbidden unto you: it shall not be eaten;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 23.');">³¹</span> yet it was taught: 'It shall be as forbidden unto you: it shall not be eaten'. [Thus] I only know the prohibition of eating; whence do we know that a man may not benefit from it, that he may not dye or light a lamp with it? From the verse, then ye shall count [the fruit thereof] as forbidden: [three years shall they be] as forbidden [unto you]: it sh not be eaten;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 23.');">³¹</span> which is to include all of them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the repetition of 'forbidden' is an extension.');">³²</span> Thus the reason is that Scripture wrote, 'then ye shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden. they shall be as forbidden; but if it were not so,I would say, it implies a prohibition of eating, [but] it does not imply a prohibition of benefit? - In truth 'it shall not be eaten' implies both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit, but there it is different, because it is written, 'unto you', and thus it is necessary: I might argue, since it is written, 'unto you,' [that implies] it shall be yours;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' viz., you may use it, though not eat it.');">³³</span> hence we are informed [that it is not so]. Then now that these verses<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Repeating the phrase 'forbidden' to extend the prohibition to general benefit.');">³⁴</span> are written, what is the purpose of 'unto you'? - For what was taught: 'unto you': this is to include what is planted