## Pesachim Daf 22b

###### Pesachim 22b:1
[Pesachim 22b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/22b:1)

וּלְחִזְקִיָּה, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא אִיתַּקַּשׁ דָּם לְמַיִם? לְכִדְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִן לְדַם קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם״, דָּם שֶׁנִּשְׁפָּךְ כַּמַּיִם — מַכְשִׁיר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁפָּךְ כַּמַּיִם — אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **According to Ḥizkiya,** who says that: You shall not eat, indicates only that eating is prohibited but that benefit is permitted, **for what *halakha* is blood juxtaposed to water?** According to his opinion, there is no need for the verse to teach that one may benefit from blood. The Gemara answers that he needs this verse **to derive** that which was taught by **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where** is it derived **that the blood of sacrifices does not render** food **susceptible** to ritual impurity? **As it is stated: “You shall not eat it; you shall pour it out upon the earth like water”** (Deuteronomy 12:24). **Blood that is poured out like water,** such as that of a slaughtered, non-sacrificial animal, **renders** food **susceptible** to ritual impurity. However, sacrificial blood, **which is not poured out like water** and is instead sprinkled on the altar, **does not render** food **susceptible** to ritual impurity.


###### Pesachim 22b:2
[Pesachim 22b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/22b:2)

וַהֲרֵי אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר״, וְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יוֹשִׁיט אָדָם כּוֹס יַיִן לְנָזִיר וְאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי לִבְנֵי נֹחַ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״, הָא לִכְלָבִים — שְׁרֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further challenges Rabbi Abbahu’s opinion: **And** yet there is the prohibition against eating **a limb** cut **from a living** animal, **as it is written:** “Only be steadfast in not eating the blood; for the blood is the life; **and you shall not eat the life with the flesh”** (Deuteronomy 12:23). **And it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Natan says: From where** is it derived **that a person** may **not offer a cup of wine to a nazirite,** who is prohibited from drinking wine, and that he may not offer **a limb** cut **from a living animal to a descendant of Noah,** who is prohibited by Noahide law from eating a limb from a living animal? **The verse states: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind”** (Leviticus 19:14). Causing another person to sin is like placing a stumbling block before a blind person; one who does so violates this prohibition. The prohibition of giving a limb from a living animal to a gentile is apparently due only to the prohibition of placing a stumbling block. **However, it is permitted** for one to throw it **to dogs.** Therefore, despite the fact that the verse says: “You shall not eat it,” apparently there is no prohibition against benefiting from this prohibited item. This challenges Rabbi Abbahu’s principle.


###### Pesachim 22b:3
[Pesachim 22b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/22b:3)

שָׁאנֵי אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ לְדָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל הַדָּם כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **A limb from a living animal is different, as it is juxtaposed** in the Torah **to blood. As it is written: “Only be steadfast in not eating the blood; for the blood is the life;** and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23). Just as it is permitted to benefit from blood, it is likewise permitted to benefit from a limb torn from a living animal.


###### Pesachim 22b:4
[Pesachim 22b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/22b:4)

וּלְחִזְקִיָּה, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא אִיתַּקַּשׁ אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי לְדָם? אָמַר לָךְ, דָּם הוּא דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ לְאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי: מָה אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי אָסוּר — אַף דָּם מִן הַחַי אָסוּר. וְאִי זֶה — זֶה דַּם הַקָּזָה, שֶׁהַנֶּפֶשׁ יוֹצְאָה בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Ḥizkiya,** in order to teach **what *halakha* is** the prohibition against eating **a limb from a living animal juxtaposed to** the prohibition against eating **blood?** The Gemara answers: **He** could have **said to you** that the juxtaposition comes to teach the opposite. **It is blood that is juxtaposed to a limb from a living animal** to teach the following: **Just as a limb from a living animal is prohibited, so too, blood of a living being is prohibited. And** to **which** blood is **this** referring? **This** is referring to **blood** spilled in the process **of bloodletting, through which the soul departs.** That is considered to be blood from a living being, and even the descendants of Noah are prohibited from eating it (Rabbeinu Ḥananel).


###### Pesachim 22b:5
[Pesachim 22b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/22b:5)

וַהֲרֵי שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ״, וְתַנְיָא: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר״ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהִיא נְבֵלָה, וּנְבֵלָה אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה?! וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל״? מַגִּיד לְךָ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁאִם שְׁחָטוֹ לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּגְמַר (אֶת) דִּינוֹ — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** yet there is the prohibition against eating the meat from **an ox that is stoned, as the Merciful One says:** “And if an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be surely stoned, **and of its flesh shall not be eaten;** but the owner of the ox shall be clear” (Exodus 21:28). **And it was taught** in a *baraita*: **By inference from that which is stated: “The ox shall surely be stoned,”** in which case it is not to be slaughtered properly, **don’t I know that it is an animal carcass, and it is prohibited to eat an animal carcass? What** does it mean when **the verse states: “Its** flesh **shall not be eaten”? The verse is telling you that** even **if one slaughtered** the ox **after its verdict had been reached** but before it had been carried out, **it is** still **prohibited.**


###### Pesachim 22b:6
[Pesachim 22b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/22b:6)

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּאֲכִילָה, בַּהֲנָאָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי״. מַאי מַשְׁמַע? שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן זוֹמָא אוֹמֵר: כְּאָדָם שֶׁאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״יָצָא פְּלוֹנִי נָקִי מִנְּכָסָיו״, וְאֵין לוֹ בָּהֶם הֲנָאָה שֶׁל כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **I have** derived **only** that one is prohibited **from eating** this ox; **from where** do I derive that one is prohibited **from** deriving **benefit** from it as well? **The verse states: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear [*naki*].”** The Gemara asks: **From where may it be inferred** that one may not benefit from this ox? **Shimon ben Zoma says:** This is **like a person who says to his fellow: So-and-so was left clear [*naki*] of his property, and he has no benefit from it at all.** Similarly, “But the owner of the ox shall be clear” means that he has no benefit from the ox.


###### Pesachim 22b:7
[Pesachim 22b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/22b:7)

טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב ״וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי״, דְּאִי מִ״לֹּא יֵאָכֵל״, אִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה — מַשְׁמַע, אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה — לָא מַשְׁמַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers from the verse that **the reason** that it is prohibited to derive benefit from the ox **is that** the Torah specifically **wrote: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear.” As, if** this prohibition were derived **from: “It shall not be eaten,”** apparently the **prohibition of eating would be implied,** but **the prohibition of** deriving **benefit would not be implied.** This presents a challenge even for Ḥizkiya, who agrees that the passive formulation: “It shall not be eaten,” indicates that in addition one may not benefit from the item.


###### Pesachim 22b:8
[Pesachim 22b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/22b:8)

לְעוֹלָם ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל״ אִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה וְאִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה מַשְׁמַע, ״וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי״ לַהֲנָאַת עוֹרוֹ הוּא דַּאֲתָא. וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ״ כְּתִיב: בְּשָׂרוֹ — אִין, עוֹרוֹ — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the phrase: **“It shall not be eaten” indicates** both **a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of** deriving **benefit.** And the phrase: **“But the owner of the ox shall be clear,” comes to** prohibit deriving **benefit from the hide** of the ox that has been stoned. **And** it is **necessary** to mention this explicitly, as **it could enter your mind to say** that since **it is written: “Its flesh shall not be eaten,”** with regard to **its flesh, yes,** it is prohibited, but with regard to **its hide, no,** it is not. Therefore, the verse **teaches us** that it is prohibited to benefit from its hide as well.


###### Pesachim 22b:9
[Pesachim 22b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/22b:9)

וּלְהָנָךְ תַּנָּאֵי דְּמַפְּקִי לֵיהּ לְהַאי קְרָא לִדְרָשָׁה אַחֲרִינָא, לַחֲצִי כּוֹפֶר וְלִדְמֵי וְולָדוֹת, הֲנָאַת עוֹרוֹ מְנָא לְהוּ? נָפְקָא לְהוּ מֵ״אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ״ — אֶת הַטָּפֵל לִבְשָׂרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according **to those *tanna’im* who expound this verse:** “But the owner of the ox shall be clear,” **for another interpretation,** namely, to teach that the owner of an innocuous ox, i.e., one that is not known to cause damage with the intent to injure, is exempt from the payment of **half** of the **indemnity** if that ox killed a person, or that he is exempt from **payment for offspring** if his ox gores a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry; **from where do they derive** this prohibition against **benefiting from** the ox’s **hide?** The Gemara answers: **They derive** this *halakha* from the wording: **“Of** [***et***] **its flesh.”** The verse could have been formulated: And its flesh shall not be eaten. The addition of the word *et* comes to include **that which is secondary to the flesh,** i.e., the hide.


###### Pesachim 22b:10
[Pesachim 22b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/22b:10)

וְאִידַּךְ? ״אֶת״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the other** *tanna*, who derives the prohibition against benefiting from the hide from the verse: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear,” what does he learn from the additional word *et*? The Gemara answers: This Sage **does not interpret** the word ***et*** as a means to derive new *halakhot*. He considers the word *et* to be an ordinary part of the sentence structure and not a source for exegetical exposition.


###### Pesachim 22b:11
[Pesachim 22b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/22b:11)

כִּדְתַנְיָא: שִׁמְעוֹן הָעַמְסוֹנִי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ נְחֶמְיָה הָעַמְסוֹנִי, הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ כׇּל ׳אֶתִּים׳ שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא״ פֵּירַשׁ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו: רַבִּי, כׇּל ׳אֶתִּים׳ שֶׁדָּרַשְׁתָּ מָה תְּהֵא עֲלֵיהֶן? אָמַר לָהֶם: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁקִּבַּלְתִּי שָׂכָר עַל הַדְּרִישָׁה, כָּךְ אֲנִי מְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר עַל הַפְּרִישָׁה. עַד שֶׁבָּא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְדָרַשׁ: ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא״ — לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it was taught** in a *baraita*: **Shimon HaAmmassoni, and some say** that **it** was **Neḥemya HaAmmassoni, would interpret all** occurrences of the word ***et* in the Torah,** deriving additional *halakhot* with regard to the particular subject matter. **Once he reached** the verse: **“You shall be in awe of [*et*] the Lord your God;** you shall serve Him; and to Him you shall cleave, and by His name you shall swear” (Deuteronomy 10:20), **he withdrew** from this method of exposition, as how could one add to God Himself? **His students said to him: Rabbi, what will be with all the *etim* that you interpreted** until now? **He said to them: Just as I received reward for the interpretation, so I shall receive reward for** my **withdrawal** from using this method of exposition. The word *et* in this verse was not explained **until Rabbi Akiva came and expounded: “You shall be in awe of [*et*] the Lord your God”:** The word *et* comes **to include Torah scholars,** and one is commanded to fear them just as one fears God. In any case, Shimon HaAmmassoni no longer derived additional *halakhot* from the word *et*.


###### Pesachim 22b:12
[Pesachim 22b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/22b:12)

וַהֲרֵי עׇרְלָה, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״עֲרֵלִים לֹא יֵאָכֵל״, וְתַנְיָא: ״עֲרֵלִים לֹא יֵאָכֵל״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה. מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יֵהָנֶה מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁלֹּא יִצְבַּע בּוֹ, וְלֹא יַדְלִיק בּוֹ אֶת הַנֵּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וַעֲרַלְתֶּם עׇרְלָתוֹ ... עֲרֵלִים לֹא יֵאָכֵל״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת כּוּלָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further challenges: **And** yet there is the prohibition of **fruit that grows on a tree during the first three years after it was planted [*orla*], as the Merciful One says:** “And when you come into the land, and you shall plant all types of trees for food, then you shall count the fruit thereof as prohibited; three years shall it be **prohibited [*arelim*]** to you; **it shall not be eaten”** (Leviticus 19:23). **And it was taught** in a *baraita*: “Shall it be **prohibited** to you; **it shall not be eaten”: I have only derived a prohibition to eat** it. **From where do I derive that one may not** even **benefit from it,** e.g., that **he may not paint with** the dye that can be extracted from the fruit, **nor may he light a lamp with** its oil? **The verse states: “You shall count the fruit thereof [*orlato*] as prohibited [*araltem*];** three years shall it be **prohibited [*arelim*] to you; it shall not be eaten.”** This repetition of the term *arel* comes **to include all forms** of benefit.


###### Pesachim 22b:13
[Pesachim 22b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/22b:13)

טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וַעֲרַלְתֶּם עׇרְלָתוֹ ... עֲרֵלִים״, הָא לָאו הָכִי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה — מַשְׁמַע, אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה — לָא מַשְׁמַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara reads precisely: **The reason** that all forms of benefit are prohibited **is that the Merciful One writes: “You shall count** the fruit thereof **as prohibited [*araltem*];** three years **shall it be prohibited [*arelim*].”** The double use of the word *arel* indicates a two-fold prohibition. **However, were that not** the case, **I would have said: The prohibition of eating is indicated** here; however, **the prohibition to** derive **benefit is not indicated.** This is a challenge even to Ḥizkiya’s opinion, as the verse says: “It shall not be eaten,” indicating that it is prohibited to derive benefit as well.


###### Pesachim 22b:14
[Pesachim 22b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/22b:14)

לְעוֹלָם ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל״ מַשְׁמַע בֵּין אִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה בֵּין אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה, וְשָׁאנֵי הָתָם דִּכְתִיב ״לָכֶם״. וְאִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּכְתַב ״לָכֶם״ — שֶׁלָּכֶם יְהֵא, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this. **Actually,** in general, **“it shall not be eaten” indicates both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition to** derive **benefit. However, it is different there,** with regard to *orla*, **as it is written:** “Three years shall it be prohibited [*arelim*] **to you.” And,** therefore, **it was necessary** for the verse to repeat the prohibition using several terms, as **it could enter your mind to say** that **since it wrote “to you”** it means that **it shall be yours,** namely that one is permitted to benefit from it. Therefore, **it teaches us** that it is prohibited to derive benefit.


###### Pesachim 22b:15
[Pesachim 22b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/22b:15)

וְאֶלָּא הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיבִי הָנָךְ קְרָאֵי, ״לָכֶם״ לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״לָכֶם״, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַנָּטוּעַ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **However, now that these** words in the **verses are written,** indicating the prohibition to derive benefit from *orla*, **why do I** need the words **“to you,”** i.e., what does this phrase teach us here? The Gemara answers: **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: That which is stated: **“To you,”** comes **to include that which is planted**