Pesachim 46

מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דר' יוסי הגלילי סבר לא תאכלו משמע בין איסור אכילה בין איסור הנאה וכי אתא קרא למישרייה לנבילה בהנאה הוא דאתא ורבי עקיבא סבר איסור אכילה משמע איסור הנאה לא משמע וכי אתא קרא לטומאה וטהרה

Surely then they differ in this, [viz.]: R'Jose the Galilean holds, ye shall not eat' connotes both a prohibit of eating and a prohibition of benefit, and when the verse comes to permit nebelah, it comes in respect of benefit. While R'Akiba holds: it connotes a prohibition of eating, [but] does not connote a prohibition of benefit, and for what [purpose] does the verse come? In respect of uncleanness and cleanness! No: all hold that 'ye shall not eat' connotes both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit, but here they differ in this: R'Jose the Galilean holds, when nebelah was permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of benefit.');">¹</span>

לא דכ"ע לא תאכלו משמע בין איסור אכילה בין איסור הנאה והכא בהא קמיפלגי רבי יוסי הגלילי סבר כשהותרה נבילה היא הותרה חלבה וגידה לא הותרו וכי איצטריך קרא להיתר הנאה הוא דאתא ורבי עקיבא סבר כשהותרה נבילה חלבה וגידה נמי הותרו וכי איצטריך קרא לטומאה וטהרה

it [alone] was permitted, [whereas] its fat [heleb] and its sinew<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The thigh sinew.');">²</span> were not permitted, and [therefore] for what purpose is the verse required? It is in respect of permission for use.

ור' יוסי הגלילי אשכחן חלב דשרייה רחמנא בהנאה אלא גיד נימא דאסור איבעית אימא הכי נמי דאסור איבעית אימא מייתי לה בק"ו ומה חלב שענוש כרת מותר בהנאה גיד שאינו ענוש כרת לא כל שכן

But R'Akiba holds: when nebelah was permitted, its fat [heleb] and its sinew too were permitted; hence for what purpose is the verse necessary? It is in respect of uncleanness and cleanness. Now as to R'Jose the Galilean, we have found that the Divine Law permits heleb for use; but as for the sinew, let us say that it is forbidden? -If you wish I can say that it is in fact forbidden.

ור"ש דאסר איכא למיפרך מה לחלב שכן הותר מכללו אצל חיה תאמר בגיד שלא הותר מכללו אצל חיה

Alternatively, it is adduced a minori: if heleb, for which there is a penalty of kareth, is permitted for use, how much the more the sinew, for which there is no penalty of kareth. But R'Simeon, who forbids it, [argues]: This can be refuted. As for heleb, that is because It is freed from its general [prohibition] in the case of a beast;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The heleb of a hayyah (wild or semi-wild animal) is permitted.');">³</span>

ואידך בבהמה קאמרינן בבהמה מיהת לא אישתרי

will you say [the same] of the sinew, which was not freed from its general [prohibition] in the case of a beast?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of a thigh sinew applies also to a beast.');">⁴</span> And the other? - We are speaking of cattle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text under discussion speaks of the fat of an ox or lamb, v. Lev. VII, 23.');">⁵</span> [behemah]; [and] in the case of cattle at all events it [sc. heleb] wa not permitted.

מכדי אותבינהו כל הני קראי ושנינהו חזקיה ורבי אבהו במאי פליגי בחמץ בפסח ואליבא דרבנן בשור הנסקל ואליבא דדברי הכל חזקיה נפיק ליה מלא יאכל ורבי אבהו נפיק ליה מנבילה

Consider: we have raised objections from all these verses and answered them; [then] wherein do Hezekiah and R'Abbahu differ? - In respect of leaven during Passover, on the view of the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who hold that benefit thereof is forbidden.');">⁶</span> [and] in respect of the ox that is stoned, and this on the view of all:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 22b.');">⁷</span> Hezekiah deduces it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That these are forbidden for use.');">⁸</span>

מכדי בין למר ובין למר אסורין בהנאה מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו חולין שנשחטו בעזרה חזקיה סבר לא יאכל למעוטי הני אותו למעוטי חולין שנשחטו בעזרה

from 'shall not be eaten', while R'Abbahu learns it from nebelah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁹</span> Consider: according to both Masters they are forbidden for use: [then] wherein do they [practically] differ? - They differ in respect of hullin which was slaughtered in the Temple Court:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the view of R. Judah who maintains: the words are as written, so that nebelah can serve as basis of deduction for other prohibitions, v. supra 21b-22a.');">¹⁰</span> Hezekiah holds, 'shall not be eaten'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Written in connection with leaven and the ox that is stoned.');">¹¹</span>

רבי אבהו סבר אותו למעוטי הני חולין שנשחטו בעזרה לאו דאורייתא נינהו

is to exclude these,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the two just mentioned.');">¹²</span> while 'it'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Written in connection with nebelah, v. supra 22a.');">¹³</span> is to exclude hullin which was slaughtered in the Temple Court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Showing that benefit thereof is Scripturally forbidden, v. supra.');">¹⁴</span>

יתיב ההוא מרבנן קמיה דרבי שמואל בר נחמני ויתיב וקאמר משמיה דר' יהושע בן לוי מנין לכל איסורין שבתורה דכי היכי דאסורין באכילה הכי נמי אסורין בהנאה ומאי ניהו חמץ בפסח ושור הנסקל מנין תיפוק ליה מלא יאכל לא יאכל איסור אכילה משמע ליה איסור הנאה לא משמע ליה

R'Abbahu<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who makes no distinction between the passive and active forms in which the prohibition is expressed.');">¹⁵</span> holds: 'it' is to exclude these, while hullin which was slaughtered in the Temple Court is not forbidden [for use] by Scriptural law. One of the scholars sat before R'Samuel B'Nahmani, and he sat and said in R'Joshua B'Levi's name: How do we know of all prohibitions in the Torah, that just as they are forbidden for food, so are they also forbidden for use, and which are they?

תיפוק ליה מנבילה סבר לה כר' יהודה דאמר דברים ככתבן

Leaven [hamez] during Passover and the ox that is stoned? ( [You ask,] 'How do we know'! - learn it from 'it shall not be eaten'? -To him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joshua b. Levi.');">¹⁶</span> 'it shall not be eaten' implies a prohibition of eating, but it does not imply a prohibition of benefit.

אי סבר לה כר' יהודה תיפוק ליה מהיכא דנפקא ליה לר' יהודה (שמות כב, ל) מלכלב תשליכון אותו

Then let him deduce it from nebelah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As above.');">¹⁷</span> - He agrees with R'Judah, who maintained: The words are as they are written. If he agrees with R'Judah.

קסבר חולין שנשחטו בעזרה דאורייתא מנין דכתיב (ויקרא ו, כג) כל חטאת אשר יובא מדמה וגו'

let him deduce it whence R'Judah deduces it, [viz.] from 'ye shall cast it to the dogs'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 30.');">¹⁸</span> _ He holds that hullin which was slaughtered in the Temple Court is [forbidden for use] by Scriptural law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' deducing it from 'it': hence it cannot be utilized for these two.');">¹⁹</span> Whence then do we know it?) - From the verse, And no sin-offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt with fire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 23.');">²⁰</span>

שאין ת"ל באש תשרף ומה ת"ל באש תשרף אם אינו ענין לגופו דכתיב (ויקרא י, טז) והנה שורף תנהו ענין לכל איסורין שבתורה

Now, 'it shall be burnt with fire' need not be stated;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As shown below.');">²¹</span> then what is the purpose of 'it shall be burnt with fire'? If it is unnecessary in its own connection, seeing that it is written, and, behold, it was burnt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. X, 16, q.v. Moses upbraided the sons of Aaron for burning it, observing, 'Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within' (v. 18) . This proves that when it is brought within, the sacrifice must be burnt; hence the present verse is superfluous.');">²²</span> apply its teaching to all [other] prohibitions of the Torah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a principle of Talmudic exegesis: when a statement or verse is superfluous in its own connection, it is applied to other laws.');">²³</span>