## Chullin Daf 117a

###### Chullin 117a:1
[Chullin 117a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/117a:1)

מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּדָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
one who derives benefit **from it** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property. **And** second, one is **liable for** eating **it due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*,** if it was from an offering that was slaughtered with the intent to sprinkle its blood or partake of it beyond its designated time, **and** due to the prohibition of ***notar*,** if it was from an offering whose period for consumption has expired. **And** third, if one is ritually impure, he is liable due to the prohibition of partaking of it while **impure. This is not so with regard to blood,** as one is not liable in these cases for violating the prohibitions of *piggul*, *notar*, and partaking of offerings while impure, but rather is liable only for violating the prohibition of consuming blood.


###### Chullin 117a:2
[Chullin 117a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/117a:2)

וְחוֹמֶר בַּדָּם, שֶׁהַדָּם נוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה וְחַיָּה וָעוֹף, בֵּין טְמֵאִים וּבֵין טְהוֹרִים, וְחֵלֶב אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the more **stringent** element **in** the prohibition of **blood** is **that** the prohibition of **blood applies to domesticated animals, undomesticated animals, and birds, both kosher and non-kosher, but** the prohibition of forbidden **fat applies only to a kosher domesticated animal.**


###### Chullin 117a:3
[Chullin 117a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/117a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יוּרַם מִשּׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים״, וְכִי מָה לָמַדְנוּ מִשּׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים מֵעַתָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** According to the mishna, one who consumes forbidden fat of an offering is liable for misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Rabbi Yannai said:** They are derived from a verse, **as the verse states** that the sacrificial portions of a bull brought for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest must be burned upon the altar: **“As it is taken off from the bull of the peace offering”** (Leviticus 4:10). **But what, then, do we learn from the bull of the peace offering?** Everything that is specified with regard to a peace offering is stated with regard to this bull as well (see Leviticus 4:8–9).


###### Chullin 117a:4
[Chullin 117a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/117a:4)

הֲרֵי זֶה בָּא לְלַמֵּד, וְנִמְצָא לָמֵד, מַקִּישׁ שׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים לְפַר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ: מָה פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה, אַף שׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, **this** phrase initially **comes to teach** a *halakha* about the bull brought as an offering for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, **but it turns out** that **it** actually **derives** a *halakha* from that case, as the verse **juxtaposes the bull of the peace offering to the bull of the anointed priest.** It teaches that **just as the bull of the anointed priest,** as an offering of the most sacred order, **is subject to** the prohibition on **misuse** of consecrated property, as offerings of the most sacred order are called “the sacred items of the Lord” (see Leviticus 5:15), **so too** the sacrificial portions of **the bull of the peace offering,** including its forbidden fat, are **subject to misuse** of consecrated property, even though it is an offering of lesser sanctity and is considered the property of the owner before slaughter.


###### Chullin 117a:5
[Chullin 117a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/117a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כְּעוּרָה זוֹ שֶׁשָּׁנָה רַבִּי, ״כׇּל חֵלֶב לַה׳״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לִמְעִילָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina said to** Rabbi Yannai: **Is that** derivation **that Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **taught unattractive,** that you derive a new one? He taught that when the Torah states with regard to peace offerings, which are of lesser sanctity: **“All the fat is the Lord’s”** (Leviticus 3:16), it serves **to include the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity in** the prohibition against **misuse** of consecrated property, even though the prohibition is stated explicitly only with regard to offerings of the most sacred order.


###### Chullin 117a:6
[Chullin 117a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/117a:6)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִיצְטְרִיךְ, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֵלֶב״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: חֵלֶב – אִין, יוֹתֶרֶת וּשְׁתֵּי כְלָיוֹת – לָא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יוּרַם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** Rabbi Yannai’s derivation **was necessary, as, if the Merciful One had written** only the verse “All **the fat** is the Lord’s,” **I would say** that the **fat** of offerings of lesser sanctity, **yes,** they are included in the prohibition, but the **diaphragm and** the **two kidneys** of such offerings are **not,** even though they are also burned upon the altar. Therefore, **the Merciful One writes: “As it is taken off** from the bull of the peace offering,” to teach that even these portions are subject to the prohibition of misuse.


###### Chullin 117a:7
[Chullin 117a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/117a:7)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יוּרַם״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: חֵלֶב אַלְיָה דְּלֵיתַהּ בְּשׁוֹר – לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כׇּל חֵלֶב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **if the Merciful One had written** only the phrase: **“As it is taken off** from the bull,” **I would say** that the prohibition applies only to those portions that are found in a bull, and that **the fat of** a sheep **tail, which is not** found **in a bull,** is **not** included. Therefore, **the Merciful One writes: “All the fat** is the Lord’s,” to teach that the prohibition of misuse applies to all portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, including a sheep tail, which is referred to as fat in Leviticus 3:9.


###### Chullin 117a:8
[Chullin 117a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/117a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מָרִי לְרַב זְבִיד: אִי אַלְיָה אִיקְּרַאי ״חֵלֶב״, תִּיתְּסַר בַּאֲכִילָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא ״כׇּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז״ – דָּבָר הַשָּׁוֶה בְּשׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mari said to Rav Zevid: If** a sheep **tail is called “fat,” it should be prohibited for consumption,** like forbidden fat. Rav Zevid **said to** Rav Mari: **With regard to your** claim, **the verse states:** “You shall eat no **fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat”** (Leviticus 7:23). This teaches that the Torah designates as forbidden fat only **an item that is** found **equally in an ox, and a sheep, and a goat.** Since the ox and goat do not have a tail that consists of a large amount of fat, the sheep’s fatty tail is not prohibited.


###### Chullin 117a:9
[Chullin 117a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/117a:9)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״חֶלְבּוֹ הָאַלְיָה״ אִיקְּרַאי, ״חֵלֶב״ סְתָמָא לָא אִיקְּרַאי. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, לֹא יִמְעֲלוּ בָּהּ! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְרַב זְבִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said** a different explanation: **It is called “the fat tail,”** but **it is not called** simply: **Fat, without specification.** The Gemara objects: **If that is so** that the addition of a modifier indicates that the tail is not truly fat, then one who derives benefit **from** the tail **should not be** liable for **misuse** of consecrated property either. **Rather, it is clear** that the correct answer is **as** stated **by Rav Zevid.**


###### Chullin 117a:10
[Chullin 117a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/117a:10)

מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּדָּם, מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״לָכֶם״, שֶׁלָּכֶם יְהֵא. דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״לְכַפֵּר״ – לְכַפָּרָה נְתַתִּיו, וְלֹא לִמְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **This is not so with regard to blood,** as one who derives benefit from blood is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Ulla said: The verse states** with regard to blood: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it **to you** upon the altar to make atonement for your souls” (Leviticus 17:11). The term “to you” indicates that **it shall be yours,** rather than consecrated property, and is therefore not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. **The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught** a different derivation. By using the term **“to make atonement,”** the verse teaches that God is saying: **I gave it to** achieve **atonement, but** not to be subject **to** the prohibition against **misuse** of consecrated property.


###### Chullin 117a:11
[Chullin 117a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/117a:11)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא״, הוּא לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה כִּלְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה, מָה לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה, אַף לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that this *halakha* is derived from the latter part of **the verse,** which **states:** “For **it is** the blood that makes atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11). The term “it is” teaches that the status of the blood remains as it is, i.e., **it is before atonement as** it is **after atonement.** As the Gemara will state, there is a principle that once the mitzva involving a consecrated item has been performed, the item is no longer subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. Accordingly, the term “it is” teaches that **just as after atonement,** i.e., after the blood has been sprinkled upon the altar, it is **not subject to** the prohibition against **misuse** of consecrated property, as the mitzva has already been performed, **so too, before atonement,** i.e., before the blood has been sprinkled upon the altar, it is **not subject to** the prohibition against **misuse** of consecrated property.


###### Chullin 117a:12
[Chullin 117a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/117a:12)

וְאֵימָא הוּא לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה כְּלִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה: מָה לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה, אַף לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה! אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה מִצְוָתוֹ וּמוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** if the term “it is” teaches that the status of the blood remains the same before and after atonement, one can **say** just the opposite: **It is after atonement as** it is **before atonement. Just as before atonement** the blood **is subject to** the prohibition of **misuse** of consecrated property, **so too, after atonement it is subject to** the prohibition of **misuse** of consecrated property. The Gemara responds: This cannot be the case, since as a rule, **there is no item whose mitzva has been performed and** is still subject to the prohibition of **misusing** of consecrated property.


###### Chullin 117a:13
[Chullin 117a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/117a:13)

וְלָא? וַהֲרֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן, דְּנַעֲשָׂה מִצְוָתוֹ, וּמוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׂמוֹ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is there **no** such case? **But there is** the mitzva of the daily **removal of the ashes** of offerings burned on the altar, **the mitzva of which has been performed, and** yet one who derives benefit **from it** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property, **as it is written:** “And he shall take up the ashes of what the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar, **and he shall put them beside the altar”** (Leviticus 6:3). The ashes must be left there, where they are absorbed into the ground, and one who removes and derives benefit from them violates the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, even though their mitzva has been performed. This contradicts the principle posited above.


###### Chullin 117a:14
[Chullin 117a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/117a:14)

מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵאי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן וּבִגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה (שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד), וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The principle does not apply in that case, **because** the mitzva of **the removal of the ashes and the** matter of the four white **priestly vestments** worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, which may not be used again, are both specified as exceptions to the *halakha* that the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property does not apply after their mitzva has been performed. Consequently, they **are two verses that come as one,** i.e., they share a unique *halakha* not found elsewhere. **And** as a rule, **any two verses that come as one do not teach** their common element to apply to other cases. The principle therefore remains in place.


###### Chullin 117a:15
[Chullin 117a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/117a:15)

הָנִיחָא לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי: ״וְהִנִּיחָם שָׁם״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנִין גְּנִיזָה, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא דְּאָמַר שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אַחֵר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a further difficulty: **This works out well according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis, who say** that the verse: “And he shall take off the linen garments, which he wore when he went into the Sanctuary, **and shall leave them there”** (Leviticus 16:23), **teaches that** these four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are not fit for further use, and **they require interment. But according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Dosa, who said** that the verse teaches only **that** the High Priest **may not use** the vestments **on Yom Kippur** in **a different** year, but they are fit for an ordinary priest and do not require interment, **what is there to say?** If the priestly vestments are not an exception to the *halakha* that there is no prohibition of misuse of consecrated property after the performance of a mitzva, the removal of the ashes remains as the only exception. Why, then, does it not serve as a paradigm for other instances in the Torah?


###### Chullin 117a:16
[Chullin 117a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/117a:16)

אֶלָּא, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵאי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִים הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Rather,** it is **because** the cases of the **removal of the ashes and the heifer whose neck is broken** to atone for an unsolved murder (Deuteronomy 21:1–9) **are two verses that come as one,** as it is also prohibited to derive benefit from the heifer after its mitzva is performed. **And any two verses that come as one do not teach** their common element to apply to other cases.


###### Chullin 117a:17
[Chullin 117a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/117a:17)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְלַמְּדִין, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְלַמְּדִין, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? תְּרֵי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says** that two verses that come as one **do not teach** their common element to apply to other cases, **but according to the one who says** that two verses that come as one do **teach** their common element to apply to other cases, **what is there to say?** The Gemara answers: **Two**