Midrash · Halachah
Sifrei Devarim 71/ספרי דברים ע״א
א(דברים יב טו) רַק בְּכָל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תִּזְבַּח וְאָכַלְתָּ, בַּמֶּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? אִם בִּבְשַׂר תַּאֲוָה – כְּבָר אָמוּר, וְאִם בַּאֲכִילַת קָדָשִׁים – כְּבָר אָמוּר. הָא אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בִּפְסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁים שֶׁיִּפָּדוּ. יָכוֹל יִפָּדוּ עַל מוּם עוֹבֵר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: רַק.
1Pisqa’ 71751. “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 addressesdisqualified consecrated animalswhich may be redeemed for use as common meat.Is it possible to say thatthey may be redeemed for common meaton account of a transient blemish?76The Teaching states:“However” (Dt. 12:15)—[this restrictive clause limits the rule to a permanent blemish!]
בתִּזְבַּח וְאָכַלְתָּ וְלֹא גִזָּה.
22. “Shall you slaughter and eat” (Dt. 12:15)—but not shear its wool!
גבָּשָׂר וְלֹא חָלָב.
3“Meat” (Dt. 12:15)—but not milk!
דיָכוֹל יְהוּ אֲסוּרִים לְאַחַר זְבִיחָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: כְּבִרְכַּת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לְךָ,
4Is 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].
היָכוֹל אִם קָדַם מוּם קָבוּעַ לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁם וְנִפְדּוּ, יְהוּ אֲסוּרִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים יב כו): רַק.
5Is it possible to say thatif a permanent blemish preceded the consecration,and thereafter the animals were redeemed—they are prohibited [for use as common meat]?77The Teaching states:“However” (Dt. 12:15)—[this restrictive clause limits the rule to a permanent blemish]!
ומִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁחָטִים אֶלָּא עַל מוּם קָבוּעַ? אָמַרְתָּ, קַל וָחֹמֶר הוּא: וּמָה בְּכוֹר, שֶׁאֵין נוֹהֵג בְּכָל הַוְּלָדוֹת, וְיוֹצֵא לְחֻלִּין שֶׁלֹּא בְפִדְיוֹן – אֵין נִשְׁחָט אֶלָּא עַל מוּם קָבוּעַ, קָדָשִׁים, שֶׁהֵם נוֹהֲגִים בְּכָל הַוְּלָדוֹת, וְאֵין יוֹצְאִים לְחֻלִּין אֶלָּא בְּפִדְיוֹן – אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ נִשְׁחָטִים אֶלָּא עַל מוּם קָבוּעַ? לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּבְכוֹר, שֶׁכֵּן קְדֻשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם, וּקְדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עָלָיו עַל בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ, תֹּאמַר בְּקָדָשִׁים, שֶׁאֵין קְדֻשָּׁתָם מֵרֶחֶם, וְאֵין קְדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עֲלֵיהֶם עַל בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לְךָ בְּכָל שְׁעָרֶיךָ, שְׁעָרֶיךָ שְׁעָרֶיךָ לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה: מַה (דברים טו כב) ״שְׁעָרֶיךָ״ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן, אֵין נִשְׁחָט אֶלָּא עַל מוּם קָבוּעַ, אַף שְׁעָרֶיךָ הָאָמוּר כָּאן אֵין נִשְׁחָט אֶלָּא עַל מוּם קָבוּעַ.
6On what basis do we know thatconsecrated 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-bornstatus is not shared with other siblings,and which may be treated as common meatwithout prior redemption,may be killed for common meatonly on account of a permanent blemish—isn’t it only logical thatconsecrated animals,whose consecrated statusmay be shared with other siblings,yet which can be treated as common meatonly upon redemption—may be slaughtered for common meatonly 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 retainedeven 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 retainedafter a permanent blemish?The Teaching states:“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)].[These identical phrases] permit an analogical inference:Just as in all your gates, which appears elsewhere (Dt. 15:22),specifies that the Firstling is slaughtered for common meatonly on account of a permanent blemish,so, too, in all your gates, which appears here (Dt. 12:15)specifies that the consecrated animalis slaughtered for common meatonly on account of a permanent blemish!78 124.2.
זטָמֵא יֹאכַל, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא טָמֵא, טָהוֹר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים יב כב): ״יַחְדָּו יֹאכְלֶנּוּ״, מַגִּיד שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם אוֹכְלִים מִתּוֹךְ קְעָרָה אַחַת.
73. “The unclean and the clean shall eat of it” (Dt. 12:15).I might infer only thatthe 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 thatboth of them eat [unconsecrated food] from a single plate.
חיָכוֹל אַף תְּרוּמָה נֶאֱכֶלֶת מִתּוֹךְ קְעָרָה אַחַת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: יַחְדָּו יֹאכְלֶנּוּ, זֶה נֶאֱכָל מִתּוֹךְ קְעָרָה אַחַת, וְאֵין תְּרוּמָה נֶאֱכֶלֶת מִתּוֹךְ קְעָרָה אַחַת.
8Is it possible to say thateven 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 eatenfrom a single plate with other offerings,but Threshing-floor-offering is not eatenfrom a single plate [containing other offerings].
טיָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּבִים בַּמַּתָּנוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: כַּצְּבִי.
9[“Like the gazelle and the deer”] (Dt. 12:15)]79Is 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)—
יאוֹצִיאוֹ מִכְּלַל מַתָּנוֹת וְלֹא אוֹצִיאוֹ מִכְּלַל חָזֶה וְשׁוֹק! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְכָאַיָּל.
10shall I exclude [the gazelle] from the classof 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)?80The Teaching states:“And the deer” (Dt. 12:15)—[this expansive clause indicates thatboth the gazelle and deer fall under the same rule].
יאאוֹ מָה הַצְּבִי כֻּלּוֹ מֻתָּר, יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֻּלּוֹ מֻתָּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: רַק.
11Or [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].
יברַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנָּתְנָה תּוֹרָה מְחִצָּה בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵם תְּמִימִים, כָּךְ נָתְנָה תּוֹרָה מְחִצָּה בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵם בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: כַּצְּבִי וְכָאַיָּל, מַגִּיד הַכָּתוּב שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁלֹּא נָתְנָה תּוֹרָה מְחִצָּה בֵּין צְבִי וְאַיָּל, כָּךְ לֹא נָתְנָה תּוֹרָה מְחִצָּה בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵם בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִים.
124. R. Shimon says:is it possible to say thatjust as the Torah requires a partition separatingMost-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 separatingMost-Holy-offerings from Lesser-Holy-offeringswhen each is blemished?The Teaching states:“Like the gazelle and the deer” (Dt. 12:15).The verse specifies thatjust as the Torah requires no partition separatingthe gazelle and the deer,so, too, the Torah requires no partitionseparating Most-Holy offerings and Lesser-Holy offeringswhen each is blemished.
יג(דברים יב טז) רַק הַדָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יִהְיוּ חַיָּבִים עַל דָּמָם שְׁנֵי לָאוִין, כְּדַם מֻקְדָּשִׁים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: רַק הַדָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ, לָאו אֶחָד יֵשׁ בּוֹ וְאֵין בּוֹ שְׁנֵי לָאוִין.
135. “However—the blood shall you not eat” (Dt. 12:16).Rabbi Judah says:is it possible to say thatwe are held liable for [violating] two proscriptions,as in the consumption of the bloodof consecrated animals?The Teaching states:“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
ידעַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ, וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ יַמִּים וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ נְהָרוֹת וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ כֵּלִים. כַּמָּיִם וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ מַיִם עַצְמָם, כַּמָּיִם – מַה מַּיִם מֻתָּרִים בַּהֲנָיָה אַף דָּם מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה, מַה מַּיִם מַכְשִׁירִים אֶת הַזְּרָעִים אַף דָּם מַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזְּרָעִים, מַה מַּיִם פְּטוּרִים מִלְּכַסּוֹת אַף דָּם פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת.
14“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 seedsto receive uncleanness,so, to, blood prepares seedsto receive uncleanness.85Just as water is exempt from being coveredwith earth when spilled,so, too, blood [of a wild animal] is exempt from being coveredwith earth when spilled.