Talmud zu Bereschit 32:41
Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim
But is it not written23Lev. 7:23. This paragraph discusses verses which present difficulties for R. Eleazar.: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written24Lev. 7:23. In the opinion of the Babli 23a, the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the Sifra Ṣaw (Parasha 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food nor subject to the impurity of food.
In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 49), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.: But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only it may not be eaten. But is it not written25Deut. 12:16.: Only the blood you may not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: You shall pour it on the ground like water26The Babli 22b deduces from here that animal blood is a fluid which prepares for impurity only if it is spilled on the ground (cf. Demay 2:3, Note 136). The argument of the Yerushalmi, and an argument that animal blood prepares for impurity in all cases, is in Sifry Deut. 73 and later here, in the second version of Ḥizqiah. (Preparation for impurity is explained in Demay 2:3, Notes 136–141.). Since water is permitted for use, so blood shall be permitted for use. But is it not written27Gen. 32:33.: Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the sciatic nerve? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass28The argument is more explicit in the Babli 22a. R. Abbahu holds that when carcass and tom meat was permitted for the sojourner (Note 53) and the pagan, the entire animal was permitted, including the fat. Then the last paragraph of Note 24 establishes that the schiatic sinew cannot be forbidden for usufruct.. But is it not written29Lev. 23:14.: Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat until this very day? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written30Lev. 11:42.: Do not eat them for they are abominations? Rebbi [Mana]31Added from Orlah, missing here. said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct33Latin splenium, Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.”.
In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 49), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.: But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only it may not be eaten. But is it not written25Deut. 12:16.: Only the blood you may not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: You shall pour it on the ground like water26The Babli 22b deduces from here that animal blood is a fluid which prepares for impurity only if it is spilled on the ground (cf. Demay 2:3, Note 136). The argument of the Yerushalmi, and an argument that animal blood prepares for impurity in all cases, is in Sifry Deut. 73 and later here, in the second version of Ḥizqiah. (Preparation for impurity is explained in Demay 2:3, Notes 136–141.). Since water is permitted for use, so blood shall be permitted for use. But is it not written27Gen. 32:33.: Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the sciatic nerve? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass28The argument is more explicit in the Babli 22a. R. Abbahu holds that when carcass and tom meat was permitted for the sojourner (Note 53) and the pagan, the entire animal was permitted, including the fat. Then the last paragraph of Note 24 establishes that the schiatic sinew cannot be forbidden for usufruct.. But is it not written29Lev. 23:14.: Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat until this very day? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written30Lev. 11:42.: Do not eat them for they are abominations? Rebbi [Mana]31Added from Orlah, missing here. said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct33Latin splenium, Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.”.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tractate Soferim
In Lord of lords,21Deut. 10, 17. the first is sacred and the second is secular; in the God of Abraham22Gen. 31, 53. it is sacred; in the God of Nahor23ibid.; Nahor did not worship the true God. it is secular; in the God of their father24ibid.; Terah (their father) was an idolater. it is secular. In Thou shalt not revile God25Ex. 22, 27. [the noun may bear] a sacred or secular meaning.26It may denote God or judges. R. Simeon maintains that the noun is sacred.27V inserts ‘as it says’ within brackets, the words being redundant. [H omits and reads ‘Ishmael’ instead of ‘Simeon’.] In Forasmuch as I have seen thy face, as one seeth the face of God28Gen. 33, 10. the noun is secular;29Because it refers to an angel or prince. in God’s camp30ibid. XXXII, 3. the noun is sacred.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tractate Kallah Rabbati
BARAITHA. A man should not send to his fellow a cask of water50Instead of water it would be better to read ‘wine’ as in Ḥul. 94a (Sonc. ed., p. 528). There the story is related of a tragedy which followed as the consequence of such an act of deception. as oil.
GEMARA. What is the reason? It is forbidden to do anything which may give him offence; as it is written, Nor put a stumbling-block before the blind.51Lev. 19, 14. The question was asked: May one send to a Gentile a thigh which has been cooked with the sinew?52Contrary to the Law of Gen. 32, 33. It is obvious that [one may not send to a Gentile] a limb cut from a living animal, for the master said:53Sanh. 56a (Sonc. ed., pp. 381f.). This is one of the seven Noachian laws. The sons of Noah54i.e. non-Jews. were forbidden to eat a limb cut from a living animal; therefore [one who sent a Gentile meat with the sinew of the thigh would commit an offence] because of Nor put a stumbling-block before the blind. But here [with the sinew of the thigh] they were not [forbidden and a violation of the law would not arise]; or perhaps there is a difference between the two cases! Come and hear:54a(54a) Ḥul. 93b (Sonc. ed., p. 525). A man may send to a Gentile a thigh wherein is the sinew.
GEMARA. What is the reason? It is forbidden to do anything which may give him offence; as it is written, Nor put a stumbling-block before the blind.51Lev. 19, 14. The question was asked: May one send to a Gentile a thigh which has been cooked with the sinew?52Contrary to the Law of Gen. 32, 33. It is obvious that [one may not send to a Gentile] a limb cut from a living animal, for the master said:53Sanh. 56a (Sonc. ed., pp. 381f.). This is one of the seven Noachian laws. The sons of Noah54i.e. non-Jews. were forbidden to eat a limb cut from a living animal; therefore [one who sent a Gentile meat with the sinew of the thigh would commit an offence] because of Nor put a stumbling-block before the blind. But here [with the sinew of the thigh] they were not [forbidden and a violation of the law would not arise]; or perhaps there is a difference between the two cases! Come and hear:54a(54a) Ḥul. 93b (Sonc. ed., p. 525). A man may send to a Gentile a thigh wherein is the sinew.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy