Talmud su Deuteronomio 14:21

R. Joshua the grits-dealer was asked: ‘Why is it permitted to write [sacred scrolls] on the skins of nebeloth and ṭerefoth?’ ‘I will give you an analogy,’ R. Joshua replied. ‘This is similar to the case of two men who were condemned to death by the State, one being executed by the king and the other by the executioner. Which of them is superior? He who was executed by the king.’⁶Nebeloth and ṭerefoth are the effect of an act of God. ‘If so,’ he retorted, ‘they should be permitted to be eaten!’ ‘It is stated,’ replied R. Joshua, ‘Ye shall not eat any nebelah.⁷Deut. 14, 21. E.V. of anything that dieth of itself. Scripture has forbidden it, so what can I do for you?’ (From here it is inferred that it is permitted to write on skins of nebelah and on skins of ṭerefah and there is no need to consider the possibility of their having been pierced at the animal’s heart.)⁸This sentence is enclosed in brackets in some eds. It was a heathen practice to remove the heart from a live animal to be offered as a sacrifice; this, in Rabbinic law, rendered the entire animal, including its skin, forbidden as an idolatrous offering (‘A.Z. 29b, Sonc. ed., p. 145).

¹⁶The text from here to Note 64 also is in Orlah 3:1, Notes 10–44, ע. It seems that the origin of the text is in Pesaḥim since only here the verses are quoted in full and an important sentence is missing in ע. In the Babli, the parallel is 21b–23a. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar¹⁷In the printed editions of the Babli, R. Eleazar is not mentioned, but his name appears in the Munich ms.: Everywhere it is written do not eat, do not eat¹⁸Plural., it shall not be eaten, you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating unless the verse is explicit and explains to you as it did explain about limbs of a living animal and a carcass. What did it explain about limbs of a living animal? Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat; throw it to the dog¹⁹Ex. 22:30. Why is it necessary to permit torn limbs as dog food? R. Eleazar argues that this shows that without such permission the limb would be forbidden for all usufruct.. And what did it explain about a carcass? Do not eat any carcass; to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it, or sell to the stranger.²⁰Deut. 14:21. Ḥizqiah stated a disagreement²¹In the Babli 21b, Ḥizqiah accepts the statement of R. Eleazar only for the passive formulation; later (Note 48) this is clarified to be the position of Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan in a second version. In this first version, Ḥizqiah must hold that an inference from a verse is only valid if there is no second verse leading to the same result. The theoretical basis is the recognition that the legal texts in the Torah are incomplete and sometimes contradictory as a system. In addition, it is held that words do not change their meaning in legal contexts. Therefore, a mechanism of translation of the Torah text into a coherent and reasonably complete system must exist. The rule quoted by Ḥizqiah is one of the translation rules; cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Ph. Longworth (ed.), Confrontations with Judaism (London 1966) pp. 171–196.
Since here the mention of the torn limb and the carcass both lead to the same argument, either one of them would be superfluous and, therefore, both must be needed for other inferences. The argument of R. Eleazar is refuted.. What does one forbid to the dog²²The dog is not a human and is not obliged by any rules.?

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.