Deuteronómio 12:21 Referencias del Talmud: Jerusalem Talmud Nazir & Jerusalem Talmud Sotah

Warning⁴¹An infraction of a biblical law is prosecutable only if the prohibition is mentioned at least twice in the text, once as “warning” to spell out the prohibition and once to specify the punishment for infraction. If no punishment is specified, whipping is intended; nevertheless, the second mention is necessary. Cf. Yebamot 11:1, Note 47. for one who eats carcass meat, from where? “You shall not eat any carcass meat.⁴²Deut. 14:21.” That covers carcass meat; from a “torn”⁴³Ṭerephah is a technical term, originally meaning an animal which cannot survive an attack by a predator. The meaning has been extended to include all animals who cannot survive for any length of time, including dangerously sick animals and those born with severe birth defects. (As a practical matter, slaughtered animals have to be inspected for signs of tuberculosis, which would prohibit the meat for human consumption.) animal from where? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “carcass meat” and “any carcass meat”, to include the “torn” animal⁴⁴The verse must forbid more than carcass meat, otherwise the mention of “all” was superfluous. The argument is reported as tannaitic in Sifry Deut. 104.. If somebody eats flesh from a living animal which is “torn”, Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is guilty twice, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. What is the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan? “You shall not eat any carcass meat⁴²Deut. 14:21.;” “you shall not eat of life with the flesh^45,Deut. 12:23. It is forbidden to eat limbs torn from a living animal. (In rabbinic interpretation, this is the prohibition imposed on all mankind by Gen. 9:4: "But meat in whose blood is life you shall not eat", meat taken when life is still carried by the blood.)⁴⁶The argument is that in one act one may transgress two prohibitions referring to two distinct verses as warnings and, therefore, be subject to distinct punishments. In the Babli, Hulin 102b/103a, the difference between the interpretations of R. Johanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish boils down to the question whether "flesh from a living animal" and "limbs from a living animal " are different prohibitions following distinct rules. (For the problems raised by the competition of laws, cf. Terumot 7:1, Notes 6 ff.).” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: The assertion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels what Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: “ ‘Flesh torn on the field you shall not eat’⁴⁷Ex. 22:30. In this interpretation, the verse forbids flesh or limbs torn from an animal (and also supports R. Joḥanan’s interpretation of Deut. 14:21.) A similar formulation, also in the name of R. Eliezer ben Jacob, is in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai, p. 214., you shall not tear from an animal and eat in the way you tear from the ground⁴⁸Vegetables. and eat.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish does not hold with Rebbi Joḥanan about the “torn” animal; if he did hold with him, one should be twice guilty. He said to them, even if he held with him, one should be guilty only once. There is a difference, because He repeated it and combined it⁴⁹It is impossible to say that Ex. 22:30 does not contain a prohibition of meat from “torn” animals, since this is the obvious meaning of the text. But since following R. Eliezer ben Jacob, the verse also prohibits flesh torn from living animals, there is no separate “warning” for eating meat from “torn” animals. The offender can be prosecuted either on basis of Deut. 14:21 or of Ex. 22:30, but not of both together. (Since in the desert, consumption of any non-sacrificial meat of domesticated animals was forbidden, Lev. 17:4, the mention of carcass meat would have been out of place in Ex. 22.). They objected: “Suet you shall not eat,⁵⁰Lev. 7:24.” “and blood you shall not eat,⁵¹Lev. 7:26.” and it is written: “Any suet and any blood you shall not eat.⁵²Lev. 3:17.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “suet and blood”, you would be correct. But it is written “any suet and any blood,” to declare him guilty for each case separately. But it is not written: “Anything soaked with grapes he shall not drink⁵³Num. 6:3.,” and it is written, “from skins to seeds he shall not eat⁵⁴Num. 6:4..” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once!⁵⁵But Mishnah 6:2 will state that the nazir can be punished separately for each item on the list. He said to them, if it were written “skins and seeds”, you would be correct. But it is written “skins unto⁵⁶A redundant word, not really required by the context. seeds,” to declare him guilty for each case separately.

An old man asked the rabbis of Caesarea: Does the breaking of its neck clear its ṭerefa from its impurity¹²⁰In all cases of ritual slaughter except for the calf, cutting the throat שחיטה is required. The same is prescribed for profane slaughter of animals intended as food (Deut. 12:21). Any animal which is killed in any other way becomes a carcass whose impurity is original and severe (Lev. 11:39-40). The question arises naturally whether the carcass of the calf is severely impure, not having been slaughtered in the required form, or maybe is pure since its neck was broken by divine decree.? They said to him, is that not a Mishnah: “He who cuts the throat and it turns out to be ṭerefa.¹²¹Mishnah Ḥulin 6:2. This refers to the obligation to cover a wild animal’s blood with earth if it was slaughtered for food (Lev. 17:13). R. Meïr holds that the intent is all that counts, even if it should turn out in the end that the animal could not be used as food. The argument here is that the animal was slaughtered in the way prescribed and the fact that it is forbidden for consumption (or for any use) should be irrelevant.” He said to them, but I asked about breaking the neck and you answer me cutting the throat! They said to him, but did not Rebbi Yannai say¹²²This is quoted in full in Halakhah 6. The statement refers to Lev. 22:28: “Cattle or sheep, you should not cut their and their calves throats on the same day”. There is one opinion which holds that guilt is incurred only if both animals are validly slaughtered as food on the name day. It is generally acknowledged in both Talmudim that R. Meïr considers even ineffective cutting the throat as falling under all rules of “cutting the throat.” In Halakhah 6, the reading of the mss. is אפילו עריפה חייב “even for breaking its neck he is guilty.” It seems that this should be the reading here also, but unfortunately the Genizah fragment is illegible at this spot. Since the reading as written is not impossible, it is better not to disturb the text., the words of Rebbi Meïr, even if it was ṭerefa he is guilty? He said to them, you answer me from that of Rebbi Yannai¹²³In Halakhah 6, R. Simeon ben Laqish disagrees with R. Yannai. Therefore, there is no proof along these lines.
The Babli, Zebaḥim 70b, argues that the dead calf must be pure since “purification is written there as for sacrifices” (Note 110).?

Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Immi said that Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: May his bird be eaten when its neck was broken¹⁵⁷If the child who was declared nazir by his father became impure, his father has to bring a couple of birds for him. Both birds (pigeons or turtle doves) are killed by having their necks broken by the Cohen’s thumbnail (Lev. 5:8). The meat of one of them, offered as purification sacrifice, should be eaten by the priests. If the boy’s vow is valid in biblical law, there is no problem. But if it is valid only rabbinically, then the priest who eats this meat commits two sins, since (a) he slaughters in the Temple what is not a legitimate sacrifice and (b) he eats meat forbidden outside the Temple precinct since it was not ritually slaughtered.
In the Babli, 29a, R. Joḥanan holds that the vow is biblically valid; there are no problems. R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that the vow is rabbinic; his position is that articulated by R. Mani in this paragraph.? Instead of asking about a bird whose neck was broken, why do you not ask about a slaughtered bird¹⁵⁸Since it is forbidden to bring profane animals into the Temple precinct, one could ask not about birds, but about the animals required for the nazir who finishes his term in purity, whether his purification offering could be eaten by the priests.? There is one doubt, here are two doubts¹⁵⁹The sacrifices of the pure underage nazir have only the problem of the validity of his vow in biblical law. The sacrifice of the impure in addition has the problem that the consumption of meat from a bird whose neck was broken is forbidden to everybody except priests in the Temple in the line of duty.. Rebbi Mani said, here also it is one doubt, as it was stated: One who perforates or tears out is not guilty because of profane slaughter in the Temple courtyard¹⁶⁰It is forbidden to ritually slaughter profane animals in the Temple precinct. If the animals are killed in other ways than by slaughter, that prohibition was not violated (other prohibitions may have been violated). Cf. Babli Ḥulin 86a. There remains only the problem of eating the meat; the irregular slaughter in the Temple precinct is not an infraction.. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: There is not even one doubt, following him who says that slaughtering birds is not clear from the Torah¹⁶¹Ritual slaughter of four-legged animals is clearly prescribed in the Torah. In the desert, all non-sacrificial slaughter was forbidden, Lev. 17:1–7. When the Israelites entered the Land, profane slaughter was permitted, Deut. 12:21. Profane slaughter has to be executed “as I commanded you”, i. e., by the method of slaughter used in the Tabernacle. In all of Lev., slaughter is described by the verb שׁחט, Arabic سحط “to cut the throat”. According to this argument, birds should be killed by breaking their neck, rather than by cutting their throat.: “They spread them a spread,”¹⁶²Num. 11:32, speaking of the quail. In Sifry Num. 98, the metathesis שחט - שטח is attributed to R. Jehudah. they spread out slaughtered [birds].