Pisqa’ 101226H:147-148; JN1:258-260. 1. “And every cattle that parts the hoof, which is split into two, and ruminates its cud” (Dt.14:6). Just as we find that [Scripture] extends the [class of] unfit (tereifah) [for the altar] to include animals unfit (tereifot) [for common food], so, too, might I expand the [class of] disqualified (pasul) [for the altar] to include animals disqualified (pesulim) [for common food]?227The text here is difficult and subject to many interpretations. See, for example, Pardo, ad loc., F:160, ns.12-15, H:147 and 432, pisqa’ 101, n.2, and JN1: 258-259. So—what would be an example? One who plows [simultaneously] with an ox, an ass, or consecrated [beasts], rendering each forbidden [for benefit].228Cf. Sifra, vayiqra’,par. 2:7, which argues that the ox and ass that plow together may not be eaten as common food, under the rules of diverse species (Lv. 19:19, Dt. 22:9), but may be offered on the altar. 2. The Teaching states: “This is the animal which you shall eat: the ox, etc.” (Dt.14:4-6)— [except for those used in ways that render them unfit or disqualified].
Might I expand the class [to include] these [misused] animals, yet still not expand it to include [these others]? Namely, one that penetrates [a woman], or is penetrated [by a man]; or one set aside [to serve a foreign god], or one served [as a god in a foreign cult]; or one given [in payment for sexual services], or [one sold for] the price [of a dog]; or one [bred] from incompatible species, or one that is torn (tereifah) [to death by a predator], or one delivered via the mother’s side.229//M. Tem. 6:1; cf. Sifra, shemini, par.2:8. The Teaching states: “This is the animal which you shall eat: the ox, etc.” (Dt.14:4-6)— [you may eat them as common food230The formula does not apply to all the items listed here, for, the portion of M.Tem.6:1 not cited here is clear that animals used for idolatry may not be eaten. even if they may not be placed upon the altar.]
Might I expand the class [to include] these animals, yet still not expand it to include one with which a transgression [e.g., a fatal goring] has been committed at the testimony of a single witness, or at the testimony of the owners alone? The Teaching states: “This is the animal which you shall eat: the ox, etc.” (Dt.14:4-6)— [you may eat them unless they are otherwise disqualified].
Might I expand this class [to include] these animals, yet still not expand it to include one with which a transgression has been committed at the testimony of two witnesses, but whose trial has yet to be completed? The Teaching states: “This is the animal which you shall eat: the ox, etc.” (Dt.14:4-6)— [as long as they are otherwise fit for food].
Might I expand the class [to include] these animals, raised in conditions of cleanness, yet still not expand it [to include] the offspring of a fit one that nursed from an unfit one? The Teaching states: “Among the cattle” (Dt.14:6)— [thus the offspring of any fit animal may be eaten.].
Might I expand the class [to include] the offspring of a fit one that nursed from an unfit one, yet still not expand it to include the offspring of an unfit one that nursed from a clean one as well as from an unclean animal? The Teaching states: “Among the cattle” (Dt.14:6)— all cattle [unless otherwise impermissible].
7
בַּבְּהֵמָה תֹּאכֵלוּ, לְרַבּוֹת שִׁלְיָה.
3. “Among the cattle, that one you may eat” (Dt.14:6). Including the placenta.
Is it possible to say that [an animal is fit to eat] even if only part of it has emerged [from the birth canal]? The Teaching states: “That one” (Dt.14:6)—
[only a fully-born animal may be eaten]. “That one you may eat” (Dt.14:6)— you may eat the clean one, but the unclean one is not for eating.231Cf. Sifra, shemini, Per.3:1 I might infer only that a prescription is stated [i.e., you may eat]. On what basis do I know that a proscription is also stated? The Teaching states: “The camel, the hare, the rock-badger . . .and also the pig . . .
of their meat you shall not eat” (Dt.14:7-8). I might infer only that these alone [are prohibited]. On what basis do I know that [the prohibition applies] to all other unclean animals? Reason dictates this: Just as these [animals], which have [at least some of] the clean signs, nevertheless stand under a proscription, the rest of the unclean animals, which haven’t the signs of clean animals— isn’t it reasonable that they should stand under a proscription against eating? It turns out that [the proscription against] the camel, the hare, the rock-badger and the pig is grounded in Scripture, while [the proscription against] the rest of the unclean animals originates in logical deduction! It turns out that the prescriptive commandments regarding them are grounded in Scripture, but the proscriptive commandments regarding them originate in logical deduction!
(דברים יד ו) וְכָל בְּהֵמָה מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה, לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ שֶׁרִבָּה טְרֵפָה כְּעֵין טְרֵפוֹת, אַף אֲנִי אֲרַבֶּה אֶת הַפָּסוּל כְּעֵין הַפְּסוּלִים. וְאֵיזֶה זֶה? זֶה הַחוֹרֵשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר, וּבְמוּקְדָּשִׁים! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שׁוֹר שֵׁה כְשָׂבִים וְשֵׂה עִזִּים״ תֹּאכֵלוּ.
Pisqa’ 101226H:147-148; JN1:258-260.
1. “And every cattle that parts the hoof, which is split into two,
and ruminates its cud” (Dt.14:6).
Just as we find that
[Scripture] extends the [class of] unfit (tereifah) [for the altar]
to include animals unfit (tereifot) [for common food],
so, too, might I expand the [class of] disqualified (pasul) [for the altar]
to include animals disqualified (pesulim) [for common food]?227The text here is difficult and subject to many interpretations. See, for example, Pardo, ad loc., F:160, ns.12-15, H:147 and 432, pisqa’ 101, n.2, and JN1: 258-259.
So—what would be an example?
One who plows [simultaneously] with an ox, an ass, or consecrated [beasts],
rendering each forbidden [for benefit]. 228Cf. Sifra, vayiqra’,par. 2:7, which argues that the ox and ass that plow together may not be eaten as common food, under the rules of diverse species (Lv. 19:19, Dt. 22:9), but may be offered on the altar.
2. The Teaching states:
“This is the animal which you shall eat: the ox, etc.” (Dt.14:4-6)—
[except for those used in ways that render them unfit or disqualified].
מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא אֲרַבֶּה אֶת הָרוֹבֵעַ וְאֶת הַנִּרְבָּע, מוּקְצֶה וְנֶעֱבָד, וְאֶתְנָן וּמְחִיר, וְכִלְאַיִם וּטְרֵפָה וְיוֹצֵא דוֹפֶן (תמורה פ״ו מ״א)? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: שׁוֹר שֵׁה כְשָׂבִים וְגוֹ׳.
Might I expand the class [to include] these [misused] animals,
yet still not expand it to include [these others]? Namely, one that penetrates [a woman],
or is penetrated [by a man];
or one set aside [to serve a foreign god],
or one served [as a god in a foreign cult];
or one given [in payment for sexual services],
or [one sold for] the price [of a dog];
or one [bred] from incompatible species,
or one that is torn (tereifah) [to death by a predator],
or one delivered via the mother’s side.229//M. Tem. 6:1; cf. Sifra, shemini, par.2:8.
The Teaching states:
“This is the animal which you shall eat: the ox, etc.” (Dt.14:4-6)—
[you may eat them as common food230The formula does not apply to all the items listed here, for, the portion of M.Tem.6:1 not cited here is clear that animals used for idolatry may not be eaten. even if they may not be placed upon the altar.]
מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא אֲרַבֶּה אֶת שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵרָה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: שׁוֹר שֵׁה כְשָׂבִים.
Might I expand the class [to include] these animals,
yet still not expand it to include
one with which a transgression [e.g., a fatal goring] has been committed
at the testimony of a single witness,
or at the testimony of the owners alone?
The Teaching states:
“This is the animal which you shall eat: the ox, etc.” (Dt.14:4-6)—
[you may eat them unless they are otherwise disqualified].
מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא אֲרַבֶּה אֶת שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵרָה עַל פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים וַעֲדַיִן לֹא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: שׁוֹר שֵׁה כְשָׂבִים תֹּאכֵלוּ,
Might I expand this class [to include] these animals,
yet still not expand it to include
one with which a transgression has been committed
at the testimony of two witnesses,
but whose trial has yet to be completed?
The Teaching states:
“This is the animal which you shall eat: the ox, etc.” (Dt.14:4-6)—
[as long as they are otherwise fit for food].
מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ שֶׁגָּדְלוּ בְּטָהֳרָה, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא אֲרַבֶּה אֶת וְלַד כְּשֵׁרָה שֶׁיָּנְקָה מִן הַטְּרֵפָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בַּבְּהֵמָה,
Might I expand the class [to include] these animals,
raised in conditions of cleanness,
yet still not expand it [to include]
the offspring of a fit one that nursed from an unfit one?
The Teaching states:
“Among the cattle” (Dt.14:6)—
[thus the offspring of any fit animal may be eaten.].
מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת וְלַד כְּשֵׁרָה שֶׁיָּנְקָה מִן הַטְּרֵפָה, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא אֲרַבֶּה אֶת וְלַד טְרֵפָה שֶׁיָּנְקָה מִבְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה עִם הַטְּמֵאָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בַּבְּהֵמָה כָּל הַבְּהֵמָה.
Might I expand the class [to include]
the offspring of a fit one that nursed from an unfit one,
yet still not expand it to include
the offspring of an unfit one that nursed from a clean one
as well as from an unclean animal?
The Teaching states:
“Among the cattle” (Dt.14:6)—
all cattle
[unless otherwise impermissible].
בַּבְּהֵמָה תֹּאכֵלוּ, לְרַבּוֹת שִׁלְיָה.
3. “Among the cattle, that one you may eat” (Dt.14:6).
Including the placenta.
יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ יָצָאת מִקְצָתָהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: אוֹתָהּ.
Is it possible to say that
[an animal is fit to eat]
even if only part of it has emerged [from the birth canal]?
The Teaching states:
“That one” (Dt.14:6)—
אוֹתָהּ תֹּאכֵלוּ, אוֹתָהּ בַּאֲכִילָה וְאֵין בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה בַּאֲכִילָה. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּעֲשֵׂה; מִנַּיִן אַף בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים יד ז-ח): הַגָּמָל וְהָאַרְנֶבֶת וְהַשָּׁפָן וְהַחֲזִיר.
[only a fully-born animal may be eaten].
“That one you may eat” (Dt.14:6)—
you may eat the clean one,
but the unclean one is not for eating.231Cf. Sifra, shemini, Per.3:1
I might infer only that
a prescription is stated [i.e., you may eat]. On what basis do I know that
a proscription is also stated?
The Teaching states:
“The camel, the hare, the rock-badger . . .and also the pig . . .
מִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֶת אֵלּוּ בִּלְבַד, שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מִנַּיִן? דִּין הוּא: וּמָה אֵלּוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם סִימָנֵי טָהֳרָה הֲרֵי הֵם בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם סִימָנֵי טָהֳרָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהוּ בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתָם? נִמְצְאוּ הַגָּמָל וְהָאַרְנֶבֶת וְהַשָּׁפָן וְהַחֲזִיר מִן הַכָּתוּב, וּשְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר. נִמְצֵאת מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלָּהֶם מִן הַכָּתוּב וּמִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר.
of their meat you shall not eat” (Dt.14:7-8).
I might infer only that
these alone [are prohibited].
On what basis do I know that
[the prohibition applies]
to all other unclean animals?
Reason dictates this:
Just as these [animals],
which have [at least some of] the clean signs,
nevertheless stand under a proscription,
the rest of the unclean animals,
which haven’t the signs of clean animals—
isn’t it reasonable that
they should stand under a proscription against eating?
It turns out that [the proscription against]
the camel, the hare, the rock-badger and the pig
is grounded in Scripture,
while [the proscription against]
the rest of the unclean animals
originates in logical deduction!
It turns out that
the prescriptive commandments regarding them
are grounded in Scripture,
but the proscriptive commandments regarding them
originate in logical deduction!