Pisqa’ 71⁷⁵

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?**⁷⁶ The Teaching states: “However” (Dt. 12:15)— [this restrictive clause limits the rule to a permanent blemish!]

footnotes: ⁷⁵ H:123-125;JN1:205-207 ⁷⁶ Cf. M.Bekh.2:2; T.Bekh.2:3

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]?**⁷⁷ The Teaching states: “However” (Dt. 12:15)— [this restrictive clause limits the rule to a permanent blemish]!

footnotes: ⁷⁷ Cf, M. Bekh.2:2.

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?

“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)].

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!⁷⁸ 124.2.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ See also Pisqa’

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)]⁷⁹ 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)—

footnotes: ⁷⁹ I have supplied the bracketed verse.

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)?⁸⁰ The Teaching states: “And the deer*”* (Dt. 12:15)— [this expansive clause indicates that both the gazelle and deer fall under the same rule].

footnotes: ⁸⁰ See M. Hul.10:1 regarding the relation of the priestly Gift to the breast and fore-leg.

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-offerings⁸¹ E.g., Holocaust-offerings and Purification-offerings. from Lesser-Holy-offerings⁸² E.g., Communion-offerings and Tithes. 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.

footnotes: ⁸¹ Heb: qodshei qodashim. ⁸² Heb: qodashim qalim.

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?

“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.**⁸³ per.20:7

footnotes: ⁸³ Sifra, nedavah,

“On the ground you shall spill it” (Dt. 12:16)— not into the seas, and not into the rivers, **and not into containers.**⁸⁴ “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.**⁸⁵ 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.

footnotes: ⁸⁴ Cf. M. Hul.2:9; // T.Hul.2:19. ⁸⁵ Cf. M. Makh.6:4.