Pesachim 48

Chapter 48

א צירעה לוקה שש א"ל כל היכא דאיכא למדרש דרשינן ולא מוקמינן בלאוי יתירי

1 [for] a hornet, he is flagellated six times?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Lev. XI, 43, it is stated: Ye shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarmeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them. This is a twofold injunction. and since it does not specify 'that swarmeth upon the earth', it applies to both water reptiles and land reptiles. Further v.II, referring to unclean fish, states: and they shall be a detestable thing unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh. This is a third injunction against water reptiles. And finally. in Deut. XIV, 10, there is a fourth injunction: and whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye shall not eat. The ant is a land reptile ('swarming thing') ; hence the two injunctions of Lev. XI, 43 apply to it. There are also the following three: (i) Lev. XI, 41: And every swarming thing that swarmeth upon the earth ... shall not be eaten; (ii) ibid. 42: even all swarming things that swarm upon the earth them ye shall not eat, for they are a detestable thing: And (iii) ibid. 44: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of swarming thing that moveth upon the earth. The hornet is a 'winged swarming thing' and also moves upon the earth. Hence it is subject to these five injunctions and also to that of Deut. XIV, 19: And all winged swarming things are unclean unto you: they shall not be eaten. Thus eating one forbidden thing can involve more than one penalty. and the same may apply here.');">1 - Said he to him: Wherever we can interpret we do interpret,2 and not apply it to additional injunctions. Now what is the purpose of 'and the flesh' [that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten]3

ב (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל דרישי' למה לי לרבות עצים ולבונה והבשר כל טהור יאכל בשר דסיפיה למה לי לרבות אימורין

2 of the commencement of the verse?4 - It is to include wood and frankincense.5 What is the purpose of, 'And as for the flesh, every one that is clean shall eat thereof' of the end [of the verse]?6 - It is to include emurim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Teaching that if they are defiled and a priest eats them he transgresses the injunction against unclean flesh. The verse accordingly is read thus: and the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten... and the flesh, viz., the emurim. _ Since the emurim must be offered on the altar, the priest is a zar (stranger') in relation thereto, and transgresses on that account also.');">7

ג אימורין מהתם נפקא דתניא (ויקרא ז, כ) והנפש אשר תאכל בשר מזבח השלמים אשר לה' לרבות את האימורין

3 [But] emurim are learnt from elsewhere, for it was taught: But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain unto the Lord [having his uncleanness upon him]:8 this is to include the emurim?9 - There [the reference is to] the uncleanness of the person, [which is punishable] with kareth, [whereas] here [we treat of] the uncleanness of the flesh, [which is subject to] a negative injuction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The inclusion of emurim in the former would not prove its inclusion in the latter case, since the former is a graver offence, as proved by the greater penalty attaching to it.');">10 R'Abbahu said in R'Johanan's name: [With regard to] all the prohibited articles of the Torah, we do not flagellate on their account save [when they are eaten] in the normal manner of their consumption.

ד התם טומאת הגוף בכרת הכא טומאת בשר בלאו

4 What does this exclude? _ Said R'Shimi B'Ashi: It is to exclude [this. viz. ,] that if he ate raw heleb, he is exempt [fr punishment]. Others say.

ה א"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן כל איסורין שבתורה אין לוקין עליהן אלא דרך אכילתן למעוטי מאי אמר רב שימי בר אשי למעוטי שאם אכל חלב חי שפטור

5 R'Abbahu said in R'Johanan's name: [With regard to] all the prohibited articles of the Torah, we do not flagellate on their account save [when they are used] in the normal manner of their usage. What does this exclude? Said R'Shimi B'Ashi: It is to exclude [this, viz. ,] if he applied the heleb of t ox which is stoned11 upon his wound, he is exempt;12

ו איכא דאמרי א"ר אבהו אמר ר' יוחנן כל איסורין שבתורה אין לוקין עליהן אלא דרך הנאתן למעוטי מאי אמר רב שימי בר אשי למעוטי שאם הניח חלב של שור הנסקל על גבי מכתו שהוא פטור וכל שכן אוכל חלב חי שהוא פטור

6 and all the more so,if he eats raw meat, he is exempt. It was stated likewise: R'Ahab. R''Awia said in R'Assi's name in R'Johanan's name: If he applies the heleb of the ox which is stoned upon his verse does not bear upon its own subject at all, why specify 'the flesh'?

ז אתמר נמי אמר רב אחא בר עויה אמר רב אסי א"ר יוחנן הניח חלב של שור הנסקל על גבי מכתו פטור לפי שכל איסורין שבתורה אין לוקין עליהם אלא דרך הנאתן

7 Scripture could say, and that which toucheth, etc. wound he is exempt, because [in the case of] all the interdicts of the Torah, we do not flagellate on their account save [when they are, used] in the normal manner of their usage. R'Zera said, We too learned [thus]: 'One does not receive forty [lashes]13 on account of 'orlah,14 save for that which issues from olives or from grapes alone': but [for that which issues] from mulberries, figs and pomegranates [there is, as implied,] no [flagellation].

ח אמר ר' זירא אף אנן נמי תנינ' אין סופגין את הארבעים משום ערלה אלא על היוצא מן הזיתים ומן הענבים בלבד ואילו מתותים תאנים ורמונים לא מאי טעמא לאו משו' דלא קאכיל להו דרך הנאתן

8 What is the reason? Is it not because he does not eat them in the normal manner of their usage?15 Said Abaye to him: That were well if he informed us16 of the fruit itself, where he did not eat it in the normal manner of its usage; but here [the reason16

ט אמר ליה אביי בשלמא אי אשמעינן פרי גופא דלא קאכיל ליה דרך הנאתו שפיר אלא הכא משום דזיעה בעלמא הוא

9 is] because it17 is mere moisture.18 Abaye said: All agree in, respect of kil'ayim14 of the vineyard, that we flagellate on its account even [when one does] not [enjoy it] in the normal manner of its usage.

י אמר אביי הכל מודים בכלאי הכרם שלוקין עליהן אפילו שלא כדרך הנאתן מאי טעמא משום דלא כתיב בהו אכילה

10 What is the reason? Because 'eating' is not written in connection therewith. An objection is raised: Issi B'Judah said: How do we know that meat and milk [seethed together] are forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of seething a kid in its mother's milk (Deut. XIV, 21) is understood by the Talmud as a prohibition of seething any meat and milk together. The question here is how do we know that if seethed together they are forbidden to be eaten.');">19 It is stated here, for thou art a holy people [.

יא מיתיבי איסי בן יהודה אומר מנין לבשר בחלב שהוא אסור נאמר כאן (דברים יד, ב) כי עם קדוש אתה ונאמר להלן (שמות כב, ל) ואנשי קדש תהיון לי מה להלן אסור אף כאן אסור

11 thou shalt not seethe a k in its mother's milk],20 and it is stated elsewhere, And ye shall be holy men unto me; [therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs]:21 just as there it is forbidden,22 so here too it is forbidden.

יב ואין לי אלא באכילה בהנאה מנין אמרת ק"ו ומה ערלה שלא נעבדה בה עבירה אסורה בהנאה בשר בחלב שנעבדה בו עבירה אינו דין שיהא אסור בהנאה

12 Again, I know it only of eating; how do I know it of [general] use? I will tell you: [ follows] a minori. If 'orlah, though no sin was committed therewith,23 is forbidden for use, then meat and milk [seethed together], wherewith a sin was committed],is it not logical that they are forbidden for use?

Previous Chapter Next Chapter