Pisqa’ 101²²⁶

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’,

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.

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].

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]?

“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.**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

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!