1) (Vayikra 7:23) ("Speak to the children of Israel, saying: All fat (cheilev) of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat.") The children of Israel are exhorted against eating cheilev, and non-Jews are not exhorted against eating cheilev. For it would follow a fortiori (that they are thus exhorted), viz.: Now if (the prohibition against (eating) ever min hechai (a limb torn from a living animal), which is not liable to kareth, obtains with the sons of Noach (non-Jews) as it does with Jews, then the prohibition against (eating) cheilev, which is liable to kareth, how much more so should it obtain with the sons of Noach as it does with Jews! It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "the children of Israel" — The children of Israel are exhorted against cheilev, and not non-Jews. 2) This tells me only of the (native) children of Israel. Whence do I derive for inclusion (in the prohibition against cheilev) proselytes and freed slaves? From (Vayikra 7:25) "For all who eat cheilev." "All cheilev of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat": This excludes (from the cheilev prohibition) unclean beasts, animals, and birds. 3) For would it not follow a fortiori (that they are thus prohibited), viz.: Now if (the prohibition against eating) blood, which is not liable for piggul (thought), nothar and tumah (— if that prohibition) obtains with unclean beasts, animals, and birds — then cheilev, which is liable for piggul (thought), nothar, and tumah, how much more so should it obtain with unclean beasts, animals, and birds! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written: "All cheilev of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat" — to exclude the cheilev of unclean beasts, animals, and birds. 4) This tells me only of (the prohibition of the) cheilev of full-breed oxen, sheep, or goats. Whence do I derive that of kilaim (hybrids) (of sheep and goats for inclusion in the prohibition)? From "of ox or sheep or goat." These are the words of R. Akiva. And if you wish, you can say that it is derived from (Vayikra 7:25) ("For all who eat cheilev) of the beast," including a hybrid. What is the intent of (Vayikra 7:23) "all cheilev"? I might think that only what is included in the punishment (kareth) is included in the exhortation (against eating cheilev), (but the cheilev of) a koi (an animal whose status is in doubt, i.e., is it "domesticated" [whose cheilev is forbidden] or "non-domesticated" [whose cheilev is permitted]?) or less than an olive-size (the minimum for kareth), (I might think that since they are not included in the punishment (kareth) they are not included in the exhortation (not to eat). It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "all cheilev." 5) (Vayikra 7:24) ("And the cheilev of a [beast that is] neveilah (carrion) or the cheilev of a treifah ("torn" animal) may be used for all service, but you shall not eat it.") Scripture here speaks of the neveilah of a clean (kosher) animal. (i.e., The cheilev of a kosher animal may be used for all service for it is distinct from its flesh and is not subject to neveilah-tumah, as opposed to the cheilev of an unkosher animal, which is not distinct from its flesh, and both are subject to neveilah-tumah). I might think that the neveilah of an unclean animal is intended, and that this follows by induction, viz.: There is absence of (the kareth of) cheilev and there is absence of (the tumah of) neveilah. It stands to reason that the absence of neveilah-tumah obtains with an unclean animal just as the absence of cheilev-kareth obtains only with an unclean animal. Or go in this direction: There is absence (of neveilah-tumah) where there is cheilev (our instance), and there is absence (of neveilah-tumah) where there is shechitah, (i.e., Just as we find that the latter obtains only with a clean (kosher) animal, (i.e., If an unclean animal is slaughtered through shechitah, neveilah-tumah still obtains), so, the former, (our instance), obtains only with a clean animal. (We now find ourselves in a predicament:) When you go in one direction, only a clean beast is being spoken of. When you go in the other direction, only an unclean beast is spoken of. It is, therefore, written (in the same context as "neveilah"), "treifah" — This excludes an unclean beast, where treifah does not obtain. 6) The implication (of "treifah") is that I exclude (from permission to use the cheilev of a neveilah) an unclean beast, where treifah does not obtain, and that I include (for such permission) a clean animal (as opposed to "beast") where treifah does obtain. It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "cheilev … you shall not eat" — The cheilev that was forbidden to be eaten, (that of a clean beast,) is permitted (for use). The cheilev of a clean animal, that was permitted to be eaten, is excluded (from use). 7) (Vayikra 7:24) "lo tochluhu": I might think this means that he shall not feed it to others (non-Jews). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:24) "ve'achol" — You may feed it to others. But perhaps "ve'achol" signifies that cheilev from which benefit may be derived is clean (of neveilah-tumah and may be used for all service), but the cheilev of an ox that was stoned, and that of an eglah arufah (the heifer of the broken neck, Devarim 21:1-9, [if it died before its mitzvah was performed]), from which benefit may not be derived, is not clean (of neveilah-tumah). It is, therefore, written (Devarim 21:9) (the redundant) "and the cheilev … and the cheilev" (to include the cheilev of the foregoing as permitted for all use). 8) "may be used for all service": What is the intent of this? R. Yossi Haglili says: I might think that it may be used for the service of what is kodesh (consecrated, e.g., to anoint the hides of offerings), but not for that of what is chullin (mundane). It is, therefore, written "for all service" R. Akiva says: I might think that it may be used for the service of what is chullin, but not for that of what is kodesh. It is, therefore, written "for all service." 9) (Vayikra 7:25) ("For all who eat cheilev of the beast of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd, the soul that eats shall be cut off from its people.") "For all who eat cheilev of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd": This tells me only of the cheilev of non-blemished animals, which are fit for offering. Whence do I derive the same for blemished animals? From "of the beast" (connoting any manner of beast). Whence do I derive the same for (an animal of) chullin? From "For all who eat cheilev." If so, why is it written "of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd"? (The verse speaks of) the type of cheilev which stands to be sacrificed, to exclude (from use) the cheilev of the (chest) walls, which does not stand to be sacrificed, viz. Shemoth 29:13). 10) "And there shall be cut off the soul": the soul, and not the congregation (for the sin of the single soul). "the soul": to include the drinker (i.e., one who dissolves the cheilev and drinks it). ("the soul) that eats": and not the soul that forces another to eat. (i.e., the forcer is not subject to kareth.) "that eats": the size that constitutes "eating," an olive-size. "from its people": But its people remain at peace, (i.e., unpunished). 11) (Vayikra 7:26) ("And all blood you shall not eat, in all of your habitations, of bird and of beast.") "All blood you shall not eat": I might think that also included is the blood of bipeds (men), the blood of reptiles, the blood of eggs, the blood of grasshoppers, and the blood of fish. It is, therefore, written "of bird and of beast." Just as bird and beast are characterized by being subject to minor uncleanliness (that of food) and to major uncleanliness (that of neveilah, which confers tumah through carrying), and by (states of) prohibition (before shechitah) and by (states of) permission (after shechitah), and by being of the class of meat, (so all thus characterized are included in the stricture against eating blood.) This excludes the blood of bipeds (men), which are not subject to minor uncleanliness (If one touches a dead body, the clothes upon him become tamei), the blood of reptiles, which are not subject to major uncleanliness, (not causing tumah through carrying), the blood of eggs, which are not of the class of meat, and the blood of grasshoppers and of fish, which are always in a state of permission. "of bird and of beast": (If only "bird" were stated, I would say:) Just as a bird, which is not subject to kilaim (the law against admixture of materials), so, a beast which is not subject to kilaim (comes under the stricture of forbidden blood, [to exclude sheep, which are subject to kilaim by way of their wool]. It is, therefore, written "and of beast" (to include all beasts). Or (if only "beast" were stated, I would say:) Just as a beast, which is not subject to the law against taking the mother with the young (Devarim 22:6), so a bird which is not subject to that law (comes under the stricture of forbidden blood, but not a clean bird). It is, therefore, written "and of bird."
Sifra Tzav Section 10
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.