Pesachim 24a

פסחים כ״ד ע״א

Learn Pesachim 24a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Pesachim 24a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

A search through several verses for the source that all Torah food prohibitions also forbid benefit (איסור הנאה), with each proposed source challenged in turn.

Overview

The גמרא is searching for the Torah source that anything forbidden to eat is also forbidden for benefit (איסור הנאה). Each attempt uses the same method: find words in a verse that are not needed for their own case, move them to all prohibitions, and then move them from eating to benefit. Each time, the גמרא adds that the verse's burning rule does not carry over to all forbidden items. The first attempt uses 'לא תאכל' in the verse about an outer חטאת whose blood was improperly brought inside. It is challenged because that verse is needed for רבי שמעון's teaching about where disqualified offerings are burned. The reply is that רבי יונתן learned the rule from the leftover מילואים meat instead. But that verse is needed for רבי אלעזר's general לאו on eating disqualified holy items. אביי then returns to the first verse and says 'לא תאכל' there is extra because of רבי אלעזר. רב פפא rejects this, since a general לאו brings no lashes, and offers a new source: 'לא יאכל' about impure sacred meat, which is already forbidden by a קל וחומר and a הקש from מעשר. The amud ends with רבינא suggesting that those words only add a second לאו, citing אביי's rulings on eating a פוטיתא and an ant. The answer comes on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (22)

1. ConclusionThe extra words teach a ban on benefit
2. ChallengeMust every forbidden item then be burned?
3. ResolutionOnly sacred things need burning
4. ChallengeThat verse is already needed for another teaching
5. Proofרבי שמעון's teaching about where offerings are burned
6. Resolutionרבי יונתן used a different verse
7. ConclusionThe new verse also teaches a ban on benefit
8. ResolutionBurning is limited to leftover sacred meat
9. ChallengeThe מילואים verse is needed for רבי אלעזר
10. Proofרבי אלעזר: a לא תעשה for eating disqualified holy items
11. Resolutionאביי returns to the first verse and reverses the reading
12. ConclusionAgain, burning applies only to נותר
13. Challengeרב פפא says אביי's extra words are needed for lashes
14. Statementרב פפא brings a new source from impure sacred meat
15. ProofWhy the words are extra: a קל וחומר from מעשר
16. ChallengeObjection that logic cannot create a prohibition
17. ResolutionThe rule also comes from a verse that groups מעשר with offerings
18. StatementThe extra words teach a ban on benefit from all forbidden things
19. ChallengeMust every forbidden item also be burned?
20. ResolutionThe word 'הנותר' limits burning to sacred meat
21. ChallengeMaybe the extra words only add a second לאו
22. Proofאביי shows that one act can bring many sets of מלקות