Pisqa’ 71¹

1

“However, at your heart’s desire, shall you slaughter (tizbakh) and eat meat” (Dt.12:15).

What is the verse discussing?

If you claim [that this verse permits]

eating meat whenever you desire it,

this is already granted elsewhere (Dt.12:20)!

But if you claim [that this verse permits commoners]

to eat consecrated animals,

this too is already granted elsewhere (Dt.12:11)!

Look—the verse specifically addresses

disqualified consecrated animals

which may be redeemed for use as common meat.

Is it possible to say that

they may be redeemed for common meat

on account of a transient blemish?²

The Teaching states:

“However” (Dt.12:15)—

[this restrictive clause limits the rule to a permanent blemish!]

2

“Shall you slaughter and eat” (Dt.12:15)—

but not shear its wool!

“Meat” (Dt.12:15)—

but not milk!

Is it possible to say that

[a consecrated animal’s wool or milk]

is prohibited even after its slaughter (zevikhah)?

The Teaching states:

“According to the blessing of HASHEM your God which He has bestowed upon you” (Dt.12:15)—

[that is, this prohibition applies only prior to the killing].

Is it possible to say that

if a permanent blemish preceded the consecration,

and thereafter the animals were redeemed—

they are prohibited [for use as common meat]?³

The Teaching states:

“However” (Dt.12:15)—

[this restrictive clause limits the rule to a permanent blemish]!

On what basis do we know that

consecrated animals are only killed (nishkhatim)

[for common meat]

on account of a permanent blemish?

You can frame this deductively:

Just as a Firstling,

whose first-born

status is not shared with other siblings,

and which may be treated as common meat

without prior redemption,

may be killed for common meat

only on account of a permanent blemish—

isn’t it only logical that

consecrated animals,

whose consecrated status

may be shared with other siblings,

yet which can be treated as common meat

only upon redemption—

may be slaughtered for common meat

only on account of a permanent blemish?

No!

If you assert this of a Firstling,

whose consecration takes place in the womb,

and whose consecration is retained

even despite a permanent blemish,

would you assert the same of consecrated animals,

whose consecration does not take place in the womb,

and whose consecration is not retained

after a permanent blemish?

The Teaching states:

“Which He has bestowed upon you in all your gates” (Dt.12:15).

In all your gates [appears here],

and in all your gates [appears elsewhere ( Dt:15:22)].

[These identical phrases] permit an analogical inference:

Just as in all your gates, which appears elsewhere (Dt.15:22),

specifies that the Firstling is slaughtered for common meat

only on account of a permanent blemish,

so, too, in all your gates, which appears here (Dt.12:15)

specifies that the consecrated animal

is slaughtered for common meat

only on account of a permanent blemish!⁴

3

“The unclean and the clean shall eat of it” (Dt.12:15).

I might infer only that

the unclean diners

[shall eat in isolation from the clean].

How do we know to include the clean

[and the unclean together]?

The Teaching states:

“The unclean and the clean together shall eat of it” (Dt.15:22; cf. Dt.12:22)—

this indicates that

both of them eat [unconsecrated food] from a single plate.

Is it possible to say that

even Threshing-floor-offering is eaten

[with unconsecrated food] from a single plate?

The Teaching states:

“Together they shall eat of it” (Dt.15:22)—

This [Firstling] may be eaten

from a single plate with other offerings,

but Threshing-floor-offering is not eaten

from a single plate [containing other offerings].

[“Like the gazelle and the deer” (Dt.12:15)]⁵

Is it possible to say that

[wild animals] are under obligation for the priestly Gifts

[of the shoulder, cheeks, and stomach (Dt.18:3-4)]?

The Teaching states:

“Like the gazelle” (Dt.12:15)—

shall I exclude [the gazelle] from the class

of animals under obligation for the Priestly Gifts,

but not exclude it from the class

[e.g., of Communion-offerings]

under obligation for the breast and the foreleg (Lv.7:31-32)?⁶

The Teaching states:

“And the deer” (Dt.12:15)—

[this expansive clause indicates that

both the gazelle and deer fall under the same rule].

Or [is it possible to argue as follows]?

Just as the gazelle is entirely permitted [with its suet],

so, too, this deer is entirely permitted [with its suet]?

The Teaching states:

“However” (Dt.12:15)—

[the restrictive clause prohibits the suet of wild animals for consumption].

4

R. Shimon says:

is it possible to say that

just as the Torah requires a partition separating

Most-Holy-offerings⁷ from Lesser-Holy-offerings⁸

when they are both unblemished,

so, too, the Torah requires a partition separating

Most-Holy-offerings from Lesser-Holy-offerings

when each is blemished?

The Teaching states:

“Like the gazelle and the deer” (Dt.12:15).

The verse specifies that

just as the Torah requires no partition separating

the gazelle and the deer,

so, too, the Torah requires no partition

separating Most-Holy offerings and Lesser-Holy offerings

when each is blemished.

5

“However—the blood shall you not eat” (Dt.12:16).

Rabbi Judah says:

is it possible to say that

we are held liable for [violating] two proscriptions,

as in the consumption of the blood

of consecrated animals?

The Teaching states:

“However—the blood shall you not eat” (Dt.12:16)—

[the restrictive clause implies that]

there is one proscription regarding this blood,

but not two proscriptions.⁹

“On the ground you shall spill it” (Dt.12:16)—

not into the seas, and not into the rivers,

and not into containers.¹⁰

“Like water” (Dt.12:16)—

and not into the waters themselves.

“Like water” (Dt.12:16)—

just as water is permitted for benefit,

so, too, blood is permitted for benefit.

Just as water prepares seeds

to receive uncleanness,

so, to, blood prepares seeds

to receive uncleanness.¹¹

Just as water is exempt from being covered

with earth when spilled,

so, too, blood [of a wild animal] is exempt from being covered

with earth when spilled.

1. H:123-125;JN1:205-207
2. Cf. M.Bekh.2:2; T.Bekh.2:3
3. Cf, M. Bekh.2:2.
4. See also Pisqa’ 124.2.
5. I have supplied the bracketed verse.
6. See M. Hul.10:1 regarding the relation of the priestly Gift to the breast and fore-leg.
7. Heb: qodshei qodashim. E.g., Holocaust-offerings and Purification-offerings.
8. Heb: qodashim qalim. E.g., Communion-offerings and Tithes.
9. Sifra, nedavah, per.20:7
10. Cf. M. Hul.2:9; // T.Hul.2:19.
11. Cf. M. Makh.6:4.