Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Genesis 32:33: Jerusalem Talmud Orlah, Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim, Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot & Jerusalem Talmud Demai

But is it not written (Lev. 7:23): “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 written (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal”¹⁵“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.. But is it not written (Deut. 12:16): “Only the blood”? There is a difference, for it is written: “You shall pour it on the ground like water.”¹⁶“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. Since water is permitted for use, so blood is permitted for use. But is it not written (Gen. 32:33): “Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the schiatic muscle”? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass or a torn animal¹⁷The argument is more explicit in the Babli, Pesaḥim 22a. R. Abbahu holds that when carcass and torn meat was permitted for the sojourner (a monotheistic Gentile adhering to the Seven Commandments observed by Noe) and the pagan, the entire animal was permitted, including the fat. Then the last paragraph of Note 15 establishes that the schiatic sinew cannot be forbidden for usufruct.. But is it not written (Lev. 23:14): “Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat”¹⁸“Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat until that very day” referring to new grains before the ‘omer ceremony.? 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 written (Lev. 11:42): “Do not eat them for they are abominations”? Rebbi Mana said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct¹⁹The argument seems to be that the verse has to be read: “For they are abominations”, they (snakes and centipedes) are abominations but not anything manufactured from them. (Explanation of R. H. Kanievski.).

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.”.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Why did he not say, “an oath that I shall eat of the slaughter of X”? Is there not fat? If he slaughters deer. Is there not the hip sinew? About fowl. Is there not blood⁵⁷Following R. Joḥanan it is difficult to find any oath involving meat that should be valid at all, since he requires an oath which forbids permitted foods; as a consequence it will also apply to prohibitions. But if somebody forbids himself anything which a person X will slaughter, the oath includes the fat of the slaughtered domestic animal forbidden by biblical standards. Since an original oath forbidding biblically forbidden things is void, the entire oath is voided. Similarly for wild animals, whose fat is permitted (Lev. 7:23), the hip sinew still is forbidden (Gen. 32:33), and the blood of a fowl is forbidden like the blood of four-legged animals (Lev. 7:27).?