Pesachim 47

ואם אינו ענין לאכילה תנהו ענין לאיסור הנאה

and if it is irrelevant in respect of eating,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It certainly cannot teach that, since each prohibition of eating is stated separately.');">¹</span> apply the matter to the prohibition of benefit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For 'it shall be burnt' shows that all benefit is forbidden, and this has now been applied to all other prohibitions.');">²</span> If so, just as ther [it must be destroyed] by burning, so all prohibited things of the Torah [must be destroyed] by burning?

אי מה כאן בשריפה אף כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה אמר קרא (ויקרא ו, כג) בקדש באש תשרף בקדש בשריפה ואין כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה

_ Scripture saith, 'in the holy place. it shall be burnt with fire,' [that which is forbidden] in the holy pl requires burning. but all the [other] forbidden things of the Torah do not require burning, But does this [phrase,] 'in the holy place.

והאי בקדש באש תשרף להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדרבי שמעון דתניא רבי שמעון אומר בקדש באש תשרף לימד על חטאת ששורפין אותה בקדש ואין לי אלא זו בלבד פסולי קדשי קדשים ואמורי קדשים קלים מנין תלמוד לומר (וכל) בקדש באש תשרף

it shall be burnt with fire,' come for this [teaching]? Surely it is required Simeon's [dictum]! For it was taught, R'Simeon said: 'In the holy place. it shall be burnt with fire': this teaches concerning the sin-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rendered unfit.');">³</span>

אמר ליה רבי יונתן רבך מהאי קרא קאמר לה (שמות כט, לד) ואם יותר מבשר המלואים ומן הלחם עד הבקר וגו' שאין תלמוד לומר לא יאכל ומה תלמוד לומר לא יאכל אם אינו ענין לגופיה דהא כתיב (שמות כט, לד) ושרפת את הנותר באש תנהו ענין לשאר איסורין שבתורה ואם אינו ענין לאכילה תנהו ענין לאיסור הנאה

that we burn it in the holy place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For 'and, behold, it was burnt' (v. n. 6) does not teach where it must be burnt.');">⁴</span> Now, I only know this alone; how do we know it of the unfit of the [other] most sacred sacrifices and the emurim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'devoted objects'; those portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar.');">⁵</span> of the lesser sacrifices?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sacrifices were divided into two categories; (i) most sacred; these included the sin-offering, meal-offering, burnt-offering and guilt-offering.');">⁶</span>

אי מה כאן בשריפה אף כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה אמר קרא ושרפת את הנותר נותר בשריפה ואין כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה

Thereof it is stated, in the holy place. it shall be burnt with fire!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whatever would normally be consumed or otherwise disposed of in the holy place must now be burnt there.');">⁷</span> - Said he to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' viz.,this scholar to R. Samuel b. Nahmani.');">⁸</span>

והאי לא יאכל להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדרבי אלעזר דאמר ר' אלעזר לא יאכל כי קדש הוא כל שבקדש פסול בא הכתוב ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתו

R'Jonathan thy teacher deduced it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of benefit as applied to other forbidden things in the Torah.');">⁹</span> from this verse: And if aught of the flesh of the consecration, or of the bread, remain unto the morning, then thou shalt burn the remainder with fire; it shall not be eaten, because it is holy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIX, 34.');">¹⁰</span> Now 'it shall not be eaten' need not be stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since we are told that it must be burnt.');">¹¹</span>

אמר אביי לעולם מקרא קמא ואיפוך דליכתוב באש תשרף ולא בעי לא תאכל מה תלמוד לומר לא תאכל אם אינו ענין לגופו דנפקא ליה מדרבי אלעזר תנהו ענין לכל איסורין שבתורה ואם אינו ענין לאכילה תנהו ענין לאיסור הנאה

then why is 'it shall not be eaten' stated? If it is irrelevant in respect itself, seeing that it is written, 'then thou shalt burn the remainder with fire' apply its teaching to the othe interdicts of the Torah. And if it is irrelevant in respect of eating, apply its teaching to the prohibition of benefit.

אי מה כאן בשריפה אף כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה אמר קרא הנותר הנותר בשריפה ואין כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה

If so, just as here [it must be destroyed] by burning, so all the forbidden things of the Torah [must b destroyed] by burning? -Scripture saith, 'then thou shalt burn the [nothar] remainder: nothar requires burning, but all [other] forbidden things of the Torah do not require burning. Yet does this [verse] 'it shall not be eaten' come for this [teaching]? Surely it is required for R'Eleazar [dictum]! For R'Eleazar said: 'it shall not be eaten, because it is holy': whatever of holy [flesh.

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי ואימא ליחודי ליה לאו לגופיה הוא דאתא דאי מדרבי אלעזר אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות

etc.] that unfit, the Writ comes to impose a negative injunction against eating it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Because it is holy' is unnecessary, and therefore R. Eleazar utilizes it thus. Hence its transgression involves flagellation.');">¹²</span> _ Said Abaye: After all [it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The teaching of R. Joshua b. Levi.');">¹³</span> is deduced] from the first verse,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., 'and every sin offering', etc.');">¹⁴</span>

אלא אמר רב פפא מהכא (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל באש ישרף שאין תלמוד לומר לא יאכל מה תלמוד לומר לא יאכל

but reverse [the argument]: for let Scripture write, 'it shall be burnt with fire,' so that 'it shall not be eaten' will be superfluous; why then is 'it shall not be eaten' written? If it i irrelevant for itself, seeing that it is deduced by R'Eleazar's [exegesis],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without R. Eleazar's deduction, 'it shall not be eaten' would be necessary in spite of the statement 'it shall be burnt with fire', to show that it is subject to a negative injunction, which involves flagellation. But now that R. Eleazar has deduced a negative injunction in respect of all unfit sacrifices from, 'it shalt not be eaten because it is holy', this is superfluous.');">¹⁵</span> apply its teaching to all [other] interdicts of the Torah.

אם אינו ענין לגופו דהא נפקא ליה מקל וחומר ממעשר הקל ומה מעשר הקל אמרה תורה (דברים כו, יד) לא בערתי ממנו בטמא בשר קדש חמור לא כל שכן

And if it is irrelevant in respect of eating, apply its teaching to the prohibition of benefit. If so, just as here [it must be destroyed] by burning, so all the forbidden things of the Torah must be destroyed] by burning? - Scripture saith, 'the [nothar] remainder'; 'nothar' requires burning, - but all [other] forbidden things of the Torah do not requires burning. R'Papa said to Abaye: Yet say that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse 'it shall not be eaten' written here.');">¹⁶</span>

וכי תימא אין מזהירין מן הדין הקישא הוא דכתיב (דברים יב, יז) לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך ובכורות בקרך וגו'

comes to assign a negative injunction [specifically] for itself? For if [we learn] from R'Eleazar ['s dictum], we do flagellate for an implied negative injunction!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the action is not explicitly forbidden but only by an injunction stated in general terms, which includes a number of other actions too.');">¹⁷</span> - Rather, said R'Papa: [It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 108, n. 9.');">¹⁸</span>

מה תלמוד לומר לא יאכל אם אינו ענין לגופו תנהו ענין לכל איסורין שבתורה ואם אינו ענין לאכילה תנהו ענין להנאה

is deduced] from this: And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten: it shall be burnt with fire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 19.');">¹⁹</span> Now,'shall not be eaten' need not be stated: why then is 'shall not be eaten' stated? If it is irrelevant for itself, seeing that it may deduced a minori from tithe, which is lighter, [thus:] if tithe, which is light, yet the Torah said, neither hav put away thereof, being unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVI, 14, q.v. This refers to the second tithe, which was eaten by its Israelite owner in Jerusalem, and who had to declare that he had not eaten it 'being unclean', which shows that this was forbidden. The sanctity of titles is of course lighter than that of sacrifices.');">²⁰</span>

אי מה כאן בשריפה אף כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה אמר קרא הנותר הנותר בשריפה ואין כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה

how much the more sacred flesh, which is more stringent! And should you say, We cannot give a warning [of flagellation] as a result of an ad majus conclusion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a general principle. Hence this argument does not suffice to make it an offence punishable by flagellation, and so 'shall not be eaten' is here required.');">²¹</span> but this is a hekkesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.,an analogy between two laws which rests on a Biblical intimation (as Lev. XIV, 13) or on a principle common to both (Jast.) . Flagellation is inflicted on the basis of a hekkesh.');">²²</span> for it is written, Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thine oil, or the firstlings of thy herd or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou vowest, nor thy freewill-offerings etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 17. 'Vows' and freewill-offerings' are sacrifices, and 'Scripture, by coupling these with tithes, shows that they are the same.');">²³</span>

אמר לי' רבינא לרב אשי ואימא לעבור עליו בשני לאוין לאו מי אמר אביי אכל פוטיתא לוקה ארבע

Then why is 'shall not be eaten stated? If it is irrelevant in its own case, apply its teaching to all [other] prohibitions of the Torah. And since it is irrelevant in respect of eating, apply it to benefit.

נמלה לוקה חמש

If so, just as here [it must be destroyed] by burning, so all the forbidden things of the Torah require burning? - Scripture saith, 'the [nothar] remainder': nothar requires burning. but all [other] forbidden things of the Torah do not require burning. Rabina said to R'Ashi: Yet perhaps [it teaches that] he transgresses two negative injunctions on its account?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is flagellated for each separately. In that case the verse is not superfluous.');">²⁴</span> Did not Abaye say: if he ate putitha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A small water reptile (sherez) . a young eel, v. Mak., Sonc. ed. p. 116, n. 8.');">²⁵</span> he is flagellated four times;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., four flagellations of the prescribed number of lashes.');">²⁶</span> [for] an ant, he is flagellate five times;