## Sifrei Devarim Paragraph 101

###### Sifrei Devarim 101:1
[Sifrei Devarim 101:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/101:1)

(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.

**Trans. by Marty Jaffee, 2015:**
**Pisqa’ 101**²²⁶
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]?²²⁷ 101, 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].** ²²⁸par. 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].

footnotes:
²²⁶ H:147-148; JN1:258-260.
²²⁷ The 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’
²²⁸ Cf. Sifra, vayiqra’,


###### Sifrei Devarim 101:2
[Sifrei Devarim 101:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/101:2)

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׳.

**Trans. by Marty Jaffee, 2015:**
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 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 food²³⁰ even if they may not be placed upon the altar.]

footnotes:
²²⁹ //M. Tem. 6:1; cf. Sifra, shemini,
²³⁰ The 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.


###### Sifrei Devarim 101:3
[Sifrei Devarim 101:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/101:3)

מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא אֲרַבֶּה אֶת שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵרָה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: **שׁוֹר שֵׁה כְשָׂבִים**.

**Trans. by Marty Jaffee, 2015:**
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].


###### Sifrei Devarim 101:4
[Sifrei Devarim 101:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/101:4)

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**,

**Trans. by Marty Jaffee, 2015:**
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].


###### Sifrei Devarim 101:5
[Sifrei Devarim 101:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/101:5)

מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ שֶׁגָּדְלוּ בְּטָהֳרָה, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא אֲרַבֶּה אֶת וְלַד כְּשֵׁרָה שֶׁיָּנְקָה מִן הַטְּרֵפָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: **בַּבְּהֵמָה**,

**Trans. by Marty Jaffee, 2015:**
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.].


###### Sifrei Devarim 101:6
[Sifrei Devarim 101:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/101:6)

מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת וְלַד כְּשֵׁרָה שֶׁיָּנְקָה מִן הַטְּרֵפָה, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא אֲרַבֶּה אֶת וְלַד טְרֵפָה שֶׁיָּנְקָה מִבְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה עִם הַטְּמֵאָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: **בַּבְּהֵמָה** כָּל הַבְּהֵמָה.

**Trans. by Marty Jaffee, 2015:**
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].


###### Sifrei Devarim 101:7
[Sifrei Devarim 101:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/101:7)

**בַּבְּהֵמָה תֹּאכֵלוּ**, לְרַבּוֹת שִׁלְיָה.

**Trans. by Marty Jaffee, 2015:**
3. **“Among the cattle*, that one* you may *eat*” (Dt. 14:6).**
**Including the placenta.**


###### Sifrei Devarim 101:8
[Sifrei Devarim 101:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/101:8)

יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ יָצָאת מִקְצָתָהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: **אוֹתָהּ**.

**Trans. by Marty Jaffee, 2015:**
**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)—**


###### Sifrei Devarim 101:9
[Sifrei Devarim 101:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/101:9)

**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.

**Trans. by Marty Jaffee, 2015:**
**[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.**²³¹, 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 . . .

footnotes:
²³¹ Cf. Sifra, shemini


###### Sifrei Devarim 101:10
[Sifrei Devarim 101:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/101:10)

**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.

**Trans. by Marty Jaffee, 2015:**
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!