Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah 5:12 ירושלמי עבודה זרה ה׳:י״ב

MISHNAH: The following are forbidden and they forbid in the most minute amount:¹⁴⁵The rule that anything which cannot be tasted in a mixture is irrelevant does not apply to these items. An admixture of one of these even if less than one in a thousand will make everything forbidden. Libation wine, idols, heart-removed skins¹⁴⁶Mishnah 2:3., and an ox which was stoned¹⁴⁷Which killed a human, Ex. 21:28., and the calf whose neck was broken¹⁴⁸To atone for an unsolved murder case, Deut. 21:1–9., and the birds of the sufferer from skin disease¹⁴⁹For purification of the healed person, Lev. 14:4-6., and the nazir’s hair¹⁵⁰Which has to be burned, Num. 6:18., and the firstborn donkey¹⁵¹Which is not redeemed by a lamb given to a Cohen, Ex. 13:13., and meat in milk¹⁵²Meat cooked in milk, Ex. 23:19,34:26, Deut. 14:21., and profane animals slaughtered in the Temple precinct¹⁵³It is pointed out in the Halakhah that the biblical text forbids only the slaughter of dedicated animals outside the holy precinct, Lev. 17:4.. These are forbidden and they forbid in the most minute amount.

HALAKHAH: “The following are forbidden and they forbid in the most minute amount,” etc. Libation wine, idols, heart-removed skins, because nothing of the taboo should cling to your hand¹⁵⁴Deut. 13:18. Sifry Deut. 96..

An ox which was stoned. From the meaning of what was said, the ox shall be stoned¹⁴⁷Which killed a human, Ex. 21:28. would I not know that it cannot be eaten? Why does the verse say, it shall not be eaten? From here that it is forbidden for usufruct¹⁵⁵This is a very short reference to a text in `Orlah 3:1 (Notes 26–28, Pesaḥim 2:1 28c), which is part of a lengthy discussion under which conditions a prohibition as food implies a prohibition of usufruct (`Orlah 3:1, Notes 10–44; Pesaḥim 2:1; Babli Pesaḥim 21b, Qiddušin 56b, Bava qamma 41a, Ḥulin 114b) Since the mention of the prohibition as food is unnecessary, the ox qualifies as a case where the prohibition as food means prohibition of usufruct. In the Babylonian sources (Bava qamma 41a, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim 10) it is agreed that it is obvious that a stoned animal was not ritually slaughtered and therefore is forbidden as meat but it is noted that the prohibition as food is necessary anyhow to show that if the ox was ritually slaughtered after conviction by the court, the slaughter is ineffective and does not permit the carcass to be eaten. Everybody agrees that if the ox was correctly slaughtered before a trial could be held the meat is kosher. The Babli has to find the prohibition of usufruct in another part of the verse which makes the prohibition one of rabbinic interpretation rather than biblical.
Louis Ginzberg in his Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah (New York 1909) p. 280 has published a leaf of selections from the entire tractate. The passage referring to the paragraph under discussion reads there (vocalization added):
וְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל. סָקֹ֨ל יִסָּקֵ֜ל הַשּׁ֗וֹר וג׳ מִמַּשְׁמַע שנ׳ סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל וְכִי אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לֹא יֵאָכֵל. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יֵֽאָכֵל֙. אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וְאַסוּר בַּהֲנָייָה. ר׳ אַבָּ׳ בְשֶׁם ר׳ יוֹחָנָן כָּל־מָקוֹם שנ׳ לֹא יֵאָכֵל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ … אִסוּר
And an ox which was stoned. The ox should certainly be stoned. From the meaning of what was said, shall certainly be stoned would we not know that it cannot be eaten? Why does the verse say, it shall not be eaten? But that it is forbidden for eating and forbidden for usufruct. Rebbi Abba[hu] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Any place where it says shall not be eaten, you shall not eat [it is forbidden for eating and forbidden for usufruct.]
The addition to the text is from `Orlah 3:1 (Note 10) or Pesaḥim 2:1 l. 15. In these and all Babli sources (quoted above) the statement is attributed to R. Eleazar, not R. Joḥanan (R. Eleazar’s teacher). The addition has to be considered a commentary. .

And the calf whose neck was broken. There, there. Since there mentioned further describes a prohibition of usufruct, also there said here implies prohibition of usufruct¹⁵⁶Babli 29b, Sifry Deut. 207. This is a case of equal cut. It is written in Deut. 21:4,and they shall break the calf’s neck there in the wadi. Also it is written in Num.20:1, there Miriam died and was buried there. Since a grave and all its appurtenances are forbidden for usufruct, and since the mention of there in Deut. 21:4 is not logically necessary, the prohibition of usufruct (and, as noted in the Babylonian sources, the obligation of burial) is transferred to the calf..

And the birds of the sufferer from skin disease. Any pure bird you may eat¹⁵⁷Deut. 14:11., this is the living bird. But the following you may not eat of them¹⁵⁸Deut. 14:12., that is the slaughtered one¹⁵⁹Sifry Deut. 103, Babli Qiddušin 57a, Ḥulin 82a. Since first it is said, any pure bird you may eat, which is immediately followed by but the following you may not eat of them, this implies that not only may one not eat the impure birds listed later but also some pure birds. Of the two pure birds used for the purification ceremony of the healed sufferer from skin disease, one is slaughtered (Lev. 14:5). The other is released (v. 7); since it is nor recognizable it cannot be forbidden to anybody who might catch it. Therefore the slaughtered bird must be the one pure bird which was correctly slaughtered and nevertheless is forbidden as food. The parallel sources also presuppose that the remains of the slaughtered bird, after its blood has benn used, is forbidden for usufruct but no explicit reason for that is given. One must assume that this is one of the cases where a prohibition as food implies prohibition of usufruct (cf. Note 155).. Or the other way around? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: The Torah has no prohibition of usufruct which applies to any living thing¹⁶⁰Babli Qiddušin 57a, opposed there by R. Simeon ben Laqish..

And the nazir’s hair. He shall put it in the fire which is under the well-being offering^150,Which has to be burned, Num. 6:18.¹⁶¹Using the hair as fuel is a kind of usufruct; since it is a positive commandment to burn the hair in this way, any other use is forbidden (but not sanctionable)..

And the firstborn donkey. Breaking the neck, breaking the neck. Since there one buries it and it is forbidden for usufruct, also here one buries it and it is forbidden for usufruct¹⁶²Babli Bekhorot 9b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 18, dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai 13:13 (l. 25). This is heqqeš rather than “equal cut”. Since the only other case where the neck of a four-legged animal has to be broken is the atonement for an unsolved murder case, the rules of the latter have to be applied to the case where a rancher refuses to redeem the first born of his donkey. Since the rule has moral justification in the parallel sources, “he refused to give value to the Cohen; therefore value has to be denied him”, the rule has to be considered rabbinic rather than biblical..

And meat in milk. It was stated: At three places it is written do not cook a kid goat¹⁵²Meat cooked in milk, Ex. 23:19,34:26, Deut. 14:21., about eating, about usufruct, and about cooking¹⁶³Babli Ḥulin 115b, Qiddušin 57b; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 20 (opposed by Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai 23:19, Sifry Re`eh 104)..

And profane animals slaughtered in the Temple precinct. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: The Torah said, slaughter what is Mine in My place¹⁵³It is pointed out in the Halakhah that the biblical text forbids only the slaughter of dedicated animals outside the holy precinct, Lev. 17:4. and what is yours in yours. Since Mine in yours is forbidden, also yours in Mine¹⁶⁴Babli Qiddušin 57b where the argument if found unconvincing and other proofs are given.. Is it punished by extirpation? Does not Rebbi Ismael say, one infers by an argument de minore ad majus but one does not punish by an argument de minore ad majus¹⁶⁵Cf. Yebamot 11:1 Note 50. There is no argument de minore ad majus involved here; more appropriate is the language of the Babli (Sanhedrin 54a, Makkot 5b,14a,17a): One does not punish by a logical argument (only by an explicit verse). One cannot object that extirpation anyhow is a matter for the Heavenly Court not bound by human arguments since offenses punishable by extirpation automatically are punishable by flogging by the human court. The exclusion of extirpation implies removal of the offense from human criminal justice.?

Why did we not state carcasses with them¹⁶⁶Carcass meat as meat forbids only if it can be tasted, i. e., if it is more than 1/60 in a mixture. Therefore the question must be about entire carcasses which usually are sold by the piece; nothing usually sold by the piece can become insignificant (`Orlah 3:6, Terumot 10:6; Babli Beṣah 3b).? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it did state only things forbidden for usufruct. Carcass meat is permitted for usufruct¹⁶⁷Deut. 14:21.. They objected, is there not leavened matter on Passover¹⁶⁸Here again one only considers loaves of bread which exclusively are sold by the piece and therefore cannot become insignificant.? Leavened matter makes liable to extirpation¹⁶⁹Ex. 12:15 (but only for eating, not for possession., but for these¹⁷⁰The prohibited items enumerated in the Mishnah. there is no extirpation.

Rebbi Yose asked in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: May prohibitions of usufruct become insignificant in (combination) [by being shredded]¹⁷¹The text in parentheses is the original text written by the scribe, printed in the editio princeps and the editions based on the latter. The text in brackets is a correction by the scribe himself.
In both cases the question is whether prohibitions of usufruct automatically imply the impossibility of disregarding minute amounts or whether the prohibition will be void if either the prohibited item is mixed with sufficiently many permitted items and is no longer recognizable or whether it reverts to the usual test of giving taste if shredded and mixed with others.? But did we not state “the ox which was stoned”? Explain it in pieces¹⁷²The question is legitimate for meat from such an ox. This question then reads טירוף.. But did we not state “the birds of the sufferer from skin disease”? Explain it as a bird among birds¹⁷³A slaughtered small bird among many of the same kind. Here one has to read צירוף.. But did we not state “the nazir’s hair”? Can you say a bird among birds¹⁷⁴This is the one genuine question since hair is not sold by the unit; therefore the rabbinic prohibition of unufruct for admixtures of forbidden things sold by the piece (Note 166) does not apply. Here also the prohibition of usufruct is secondary; the question can arise only if the positive commandment of burning the hair in the fire cooking the well-being offering has not been followed.? When they came to study `Orlah did Rebbi Jacob object before Rebbi Yose, did we not state<sup>175</sup>Mishnah `Orlah 3:3. Since a minimum length of a si̇̄t (`Orlah 3:3 Note 82) is required, it is obvious that the prohibition of the nazir’s hair does not apply to minute amounts., “if somebody weaves the length of a sīt of firstling’s wool, the cloth must be burned. Of nazir’s hair or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned.” He told him, (if the Tanna had said before us, you would have given)<sup>176</sup>The text as written here can be translated word for word but does not make any sense. It is a corruption of a text in `Orlah 3:3 (Note 94): אִילּוּ אִיְתָּבָת תַּמָּן אִית הֲווָת יְאוּת׃ If you had objected there you would have been correct, i. e., if when I asked the question in Avodah zarah about prohibitions of usufruct becoming insignificant you pointed out the Mishnah in `Orlah it would have been relevant. correctly.