Li-zchus -
R' Moshe Yehuda Hanus
R' Shmuel Stein
R' Chaim Schreck
R' Eytan Feldman
R' Avromi Sommers
馃槉馃槉馃槉!!!For much success in all they do together with their families
Says the Gemara [Pesachim 21b-22b]:
讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讗讞讚 讗讬住讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛 (诪砖诪注) 注讚 砖讬驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讻讚专讱 砖驻专讟 诇讱 讘谞讘讬诇讛
And this conclusion disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said that wherever it is stated: “It shall not be eaten,” “You, singular, shall not eat,” or “You, plural, shall not eat,” both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of deriving benefit are implied, unless the verse specifies that one may benefit, in the manner that it specified with regard to an unslaughtered animal carcass......
[The Gemara further challenges Rabbi Abbahu’s opinion]: And yet there is the prohibition against eating a limb cut from a living animal, as it is written:“Only be steadfast in not eating the blood; for the blood is the life; and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23). And it was taughtin a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that a personmay not offer a cup of wine to a nazirite, who is prohibited from drinking wine, and that he may not offer a limb cut from a living animal to a descendant of Noah, who is prohibited by Noahide law from eating a limb from a living animal? The verse states: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). Causing another person to sin is like placing a stumbling block before a blind person; one who does so violates this prohibition. The prohibition of giving a limb from a living animal to a gentile is apparently due only to the prohibition of placing a stumbling block. However, it is permitted for one to throw it to dogs. Therefore, despite the fact that the verse says: “You shall not eat it,” apparently there is no prohibition against benefiting from this prohibited item [giving it to the dogs is considered benefit - see Tosofos]. This challenges Rabbi Abbahu’s principle.
Asked Rebbe Akiva Eiger: In the Gemara in Chullin [101b] there is a machlokes between R' Yehuda and the Chachomim if 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 applies also to impure animals and according to the Chachomim it applies only to pure animals. And that is only with regard to Jews [because the 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 is already 讗住讜专 without the 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 - as derived from a pasuk], but a 讘谉 谞讞 is not allowed to eat 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 of ALL animals regardless of whether they are pure or impure, because they don't have the 讗讬住讜专 of eating 讘讛诪讜转 讟诪讗讜转 so for them there is no distinction.
If so, what is the proof of Rav Nosson that 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 is 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛, maybe the braisa is talking about 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 of a 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 which is permitted to feed to dogs since there is no 讗讬住讜专 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 for 讘讛诪讜转 讟诪讗讜转?! But there WOULD be an 讗讬住讜专 of 诇驻谞讬 注讜专 because that applies to 讘谞讬 谞讞 as well?? !
Answered Rebbe Akiva Eiger: The Sefer Emunas Shmuel [14] writes that there is no 讗讬住讜专 of 诇驻谞讬 注讜专 when one hands an 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讟诪讗 to a 讘谉 谞讞 since a Jew doesn't have this 讗讬住讜专 on himself [see there]. Meaning that what is permitted to him has no 讗讬住讜专 of 诇驻谞讬 注讜专 even though it is 讗住讜专 for the one taking it. According to this, we CAN'T SAY that the braisa is talking about a 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 for if that were the case, there would be no 诇驻谞讬 注讜专 when handing it to a 讘谉 谞讞 and the braisa says that there is!! So it MUST be talking about a 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 and we see that one may benefit from it, against the principal of Rebbe Abahu?!
The same answer emerges from a careful reading of the Bach and Hagahos Prisha [Yo"d 62]. However the Pri Chodosh and Shach wondered what the basis of the idea of the Emunas Shmuel is. What is the svara to distinguish between whether the Jew is himself commanded or not? The bottom line is that he caused someone to sin and that should suffice to transgress 诇驻谞讬 注讜专?!!
