וְכָל־חַטָּ֡את אֲשֶׁר֩ יוּבָ֨א מִדָּמָ֜הּ אֶל־אֹ֧הֶל מוֹעֵ֛ד לְכַפֵּ֥ר בַּקֹּ֖דֶשׁ לֹ֣א תֵאָכֵ֑ל בָּאֵ֖שׁ תִּשָּׂרֵֽף׃ (פ)
무릇 제사장의 소제물은 온전히 불사르고 먹지 말지니라
Jerusalem Talmud Orlah
The rabbis of Caesarea31A second version of the position of R. Joḥanan, differing from what was stated earlier., Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the probition of eating if it is written “do not eat”32The text is incomplete; it refers to the statement of R. Eleazar (Note 11). If the prohibition of food is in the active voice it does not imply prohibition of usufruct. That implies that the passive voice does imply prohibition of usufruct.. The paradigm33This proves that the passive voice implies prohibition of usufruct; since it is the only such case where the inference is valid according to everybody. The verse is understood [Sifra Ẓaw Pereq 8(5), quoted in Babli Zebaḥim 82a, Yerushalmi Pesaḥim 7:9, fol. 35a] following a punctuation which differs from the masoretic: “Any purification offering, some of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify, in the Sanctuary it shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned.” This is a possible reading since purification offerings can be eaten only in the Sanctuary. Then “Sanctuary” is taken also to refer to the last clause, “(in the sanctuary) in fire it shall be burned.” This excludes all sacred and profane usufruct after purification. for all cases is (Lev. 6:23): “Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned.” Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said (Lev. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat,” why has it been said (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work”? It comes to tell you, even for the work of Heaven15“But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only you shall not eat it.” This paragraph discusses verses which present a difficulty for R. Eleazar.
In the opinion of the Babli, Pesaḥim 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(Ẓaw Paraša 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food and not 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 33), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.. If one understands what has been said (Lev. 12:16): “But the blood you shall not eat,” why has it been said “you shall pour it on the ground like water”? It comes to tell you, as water prepares, so blood prepares16“Only the blood you shall not eat; pour it on the ground like water.” The Babli, Pesaḥim 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.. If one understands what has been said (Deut. 14:21) “Do not eat any carcass;” why has it been said “to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it”? To tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat34The resident sojourner, in order to receive the full protection of the law, has only to follow the “precepts of the descendants of Noe”, to abstain from idolatry, murder, incest and adultery, eating limbs torn from living animals, blasphemy, robbery, and anarchy.. If one understands what has been said (Ex. 22:30): “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat,” why has it been said “throw it to the dog”? This you throw to the dog but not profane meat slaughered in the Temple precinct35In the Babli, Pesaḥim 22a, this is quoted as the opinion of R. Meïr. It is forbidden to slaughter anything but sacrifices in the Temple precinct, Lev. 17:4..
In the opinion of the Babli, Pesaḥim 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(Ẓaw Paraša 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food and not 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 33), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.. If one understands what has been said (Lev. 12:16): “But the blood you shall not eat,” why has it been said “you shall pour it on the ground like water”? It comes to tell you, as water prepares, so blood prepares16“Only the blood you shall not eat; pour it on the ground like water.” The Babli, Pesaḥim 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.. If one understands what has been said (Deut. 14:21) “Do not eat any carcass;” why has it been said “to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it”? To tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat34The resident sojourner, in order to receive the full protection of the law, has only to follow the “precepts of the descendants of Noe”, to abstain from idolatry, murder, incest and adultery, eating limbs torn from living animals, blasphemy, robbery, and anarchy.. If one understands what has been said (Ex. 22:30): “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat,” why has it been said “throw it to the dog”? This you throw to the dog but not profane meat slaughered in the Temple precinct35In the Babli, Pesaḥim 22a, this is quoted as the opinion of R. Meïr. It is forbidden to slaughter anything but sacrifices in the Temple precinct, Lev. 17:4..
Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim
The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating if it is written do not eat, do not eat. It may not be eaten (f.). it may not be eaten (m.), you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating46In contrast to the statement of R. Eleazar (Note 17) it is asserted that if the prohibition of food is in the active voice it does not imply prohibition of usufruct. Still the passive voice does imply prohibition of usufruct.. The paradigm for all cases is47Lev. 6:23.: Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned48It is shown that the passive voice implies prohibition of usufruct, since it is the only such case where the inference is valid according to everybody. The verse is understood (Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 8(5), quoted in Babli Zebaḥim 82a, Yerushalmi Pesaḥim7:9, fol. 35a] following a punctuation which differs from the masoretic one: Any purification offering, some of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify, in the Sanctuary it shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. This is a possible reading since purification offerings may be eaten only in the Sanctuary. Then “Sanctuary” is taken also to refer to the last clause, (in the sanctuary) in fire it shall be burned. This excludes all sacred and profane usufruct after purification.. Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said49Lev. 7:23.: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat, why has it been said: but fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work? Even for the work of Heaven24Lev. 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.. If one understands what has been said50Deut. 12:16.: But the blood you shall not eat, why has it been said,you shall pour it on the ground like water? As water prepares51Preparation for impurity is explained in Demay 2:3, Notes 136–141., so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said52Deut. 14:21.: Do not eat any carcass; why has it been said, to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it? It serves to tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat53The resident sojourner, in order to receive the full protection of the law, only has to follow the “precepts of the descendants of Noe”, to abstain from idolatry, murder, incest and adultery, eating limbs tom from a living animal, blasphemy, robbery, and anarchy.. If one understands what has been said54Ex. 22:30.: Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat, why does the verse say, throw it to the dog? This you throw to the dog but you do not throw profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct55In the Babli 22a this is quoted as the opinion of R. Meïr. It is forbidden to slaughter anything but sacrifices in the Temple precinct, Lev.17:4..
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.. If one understands what has been said50Deut. 12:16.: But the blood you shall not eat, why has it been said,you shall pour it on the ground like water? As water prepares51Preparation for impurity is explained in Demay 2:3, Notes 136–141., so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said52Deut. 14:21.: Do not eat any carcass; why has it been said, to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it? It serves to tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat53The resident sojourner, in order to receive the full protection of the law, only has to follow the “precepts of the descendants of Noe”, to abstain from idolatry, murder, incest and adultery, eating limbs tom from a living animal, blasphemy, robbery, and anarchy.. If one understands what has been said54Ex. 22:30.: Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat, why does the verse say, throw it to the dog? This you throw to the dog but you do not throw profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct55In the Babli 22a this is quoted as the opinion of R. Meïr. It is forbidden to slaughter anything but sacrifices in the Temple precinct, Lev.17:4..
Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim
MISHNAH: Flesh of most holy sacrifices47Elevation, purification, and reparation sacrifices, whose flesh never should leave the sacred precinct. which became impure either by original impurity or by derivative impurity48Derivative impurity is rabbinic impurity; according to biblical standards the flesh could be eaten., whether inside or outside, the House of Shammai are saying that everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity49Since most holy sacrifices may not leave the sacred precinct, flesh disqualified for the altar must be burned in the courtyard. Only if the flesh was taken outside and became biblically impure can it not be returned and must be disposed of by being burnt outside.. The House of Hillel are saying that everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity50They hold that flesh impure by biblical standards has to be removed as quickly as possible from the sacred precinct; then it can be burned outside in leisurely fashion. Flesh inside which is considered impure only by common usage, not biblical decree, may be burned in the courtyard. No flesh impure in any way may be introduced into the sacred precinct..
Rebbi Eliezer says, what became impure by original impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned outside. But what became impure by derivative impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned inside51In the matter of burning, he considers rabbinic impurity as nonexistent.. Rebbi Aqiba said, the place of its impurity is the place of its burning52This is his interpretation of the hidden meaning of Lev. 6:23, as explained in Sifra Saw Pereq8(5–6), where also additional opinions of RR. Meïr and Jehudah are reported..
Rebbi Eliezer says, what became impure by original impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned outside. But what became impure by derivative impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned inside51In the matter of burning, he considers rabbinic impurity as nonexistent.. Rebbi Aqiba said, the place of its impurity is the place of its burning52This is his interpretation of the hidden meaning of Lev. 6:23, as explained in Sifra Saw Pereq8(5–6), where also additional opinions of RR. Meïr and Jehudah are reported..