ושור הנסקל ועגלה ערופה וצפורי מצורע ופטר חמור ובשר בחלב כולם מטמאין טומאת אוכלין

the flesh of an ox that is stoned, a heifer whose neck is broken, the birds sacrificed by a leper (see Leviticus 14: 4–7), a firstborn donkey whose neck was broken, and meat cooked together with milk are all susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, despite the fact that they are forbidden for consumption.

רבי שמעון אומר כולן אין מטמאין טומאת אוכלין ומודה רבי שמעון בבשר בחלב שמטמא טומאת אוכלין הואיל והיתה לו שעת הכושר

Rabbi Shimon says: None of them are susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since they are all items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit, and they are therefore not considered food. And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to meat cooked together with milk that it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food since it, i. e., both the meat and the milk, had a time that it was fit for consumption before it was rendered forbidden.

ואמר רב אסי אמר רבי יוחנן מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון מכל האכל אשר יאכל אוכל שאתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים קרוי אוכל אוכל שאי אתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים אינו קרוי אוכל

And Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that an item from which it is prohibited to derive benefit is not susceptible to impurity of food? It is because it is stated:“ All food which may be eaten [ha’okhel asher ye’akhel], that on which water comes, shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34). The redundancy in the phrase“ food which may be eaten” indicates that specifically food that you are able to feed to others, in this case, gentiles, is termed food for the purposes of susceptibility to the impurity of food, but food that you are not able to feed to others is not termed food. Therefore, items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit and which it is therefore prohibited to feed to others are not considered food in this context.

והא פיגל במנחה נמי אוכל שאי אתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים הוא

Rabbi Oshaya explains how this can be applied to piggul: A meal offering that one rendered piggul is also food that you are not able to feed to others, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. Consequently, it is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food according to Rabbi Shimon.

אי הכי בשר בחלב נמי תיפוק ליה דאוכל שאתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים הוא

The Gemara asks: If so, why doesn’t he also derive that meat cooked in milk is susceptible to impurity because it is food that you may feed to others, as Rabbi Shimon maintains that it is permitted to derive benefit from meat and milk cooked together?

דתניא רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום רבי שמעון בשר בחלב אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה שנאמר כי עם קדוש אתה לה׳ אלהיך לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו ולהלן הוא אומר ואנשי קדש תהיון לי ובשר בשדה טרפה לא תאכלו מה להלן אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה אף כאן אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה

As it is taught in a baraita:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: With regard to meat cooked in milk, eating it is prohibited and deriving benefit from it is permitted, as it is stated: “ For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; you shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Deuteronomy 14:21). And elsewhere the verse states: “ And you shall be holy men to Me; therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn by animals [tereifa] in the field” (Exodus 22:30). Just as there, with regard to an animal torn by animals, which is forbidden as a tereifa, i. e., an animal possessing a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months, eating it is prohibited but deriving benefit from it is permitted, so too here, with regard to meat cooked in milk, where being a holy people is also mentioned, eating it is forbidden but deriving benefit from it is permitted.

חדא ועוד קאמר חדא דאוכל שאתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים הוא ועוד לדידיה נמי היתה לו שעת הכושר

The Gemara answers: The baraita that cites Rabbi Shimon’s opinion states one reason why meat cooked in milk is susceptible to impurity and adds another. One reason is that it is food that you can feed to others. Therefore, it is called food for the purpose of being susceptible to impurity. And another reason is that even for him, i. e., a Jew, although it is currently prohibited to eat the milk and meat, it had a time when each was fit to be eaten, i. e., before they were cooked together; therefore, they remain susceptible to impurity.

מיתיבי רבי שמעון אומר יש נותר שהוא מטמא טומאת אוכלין ויש נותר שאינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says that there is a case of the leftover of an offering that is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, but there is also a case of the leftover of an offering that is not susceptible to the impurity of food.

כיצד לן לפני זריקה אינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין לאחר זריקה מטמא טומאת אוכלין

How so? If it was left overnight before the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, it is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, as it never became fit for consumption. But if it was left overnight after the sprinkling of the blood, it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since from after the sprinkling of the blood until it was left overnight, it was fit for consumption.

(והא) ופיגול בין בקדשי קדשים בין בקדשים קלים אינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין פיגל במנחה מטמא טומאת אוכלין

The baraita continues: And with regard to piggul, both in cases of offerings of the most sacred order as well as in cases of offerings of lesser sanctity, the meat of the offering is not susceptible to the impurity of food. This is because it was rendered forbidden for consumption at the beginning of the sacrificial rite, and was never fit for consumption. If the priest rendered a meal offering piggul, it is susceptible to the impurity of food, since it did have a period of time when it was acceptable, i. e., when it was still flour before it was consecrated as a meal offering. This ruling contradicts Rabbi Oshaya’s understanding that according to Rabbi Shimon, a meal offering that became piggul is not susceptible to the impurity of food.

לא קשיא כאן שהיתה לה שעת הכושר כאן שלא היתה לה שעת הכושר

The Gemara answers: That is not difficult, as here, in the baraita where Rabbi Shimon ruled that the meal offering that became piggul is susceptible to the impurity of food, it is referring to a case where it had a time in which it was fit for consumption. There, where it is not susceptible to the impurity of food, it is referring to a case where it did not have a time in which it was fit for consumption.

היכי דמי דלא היתה לה שעת הכושר דאקדשינהו במחובר

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where it did not have a time in which it was fit for consumption? Before the flour was consecrated as a meal offering, it was certainly permitted for consumption. The Gemara answers: This would occur where he consecrated the wheat while it was still attached to the ground and was therefore not yet susceptible to impurity. Once harvested, it was already prohibited for consumption.

וליפרקינהו הניחא להך לישנא דאמר רבי אושעיא טמאין נפדין טהורין אין נפדין שפיר

The Gemara raises a difficulty: The flour may still have a time in which it was fit. Let him redeem it before it is placed in a service vessel. Why is it regarded as not having a time in which it was fit for consumption? The Gemara qualifies the question: This distinction, between flour that came from wheat that was consecrated before it was harvested and wheat or flour that was consecrated at a later point, works out well according to this version of that which Rabbi Oshaya said: Impure meal offerings and libations that have not been consecrated in a service vessel are redeemed; if they are pure, they are not redeemed. Accordingly, it works out well that the flour does not have a time in which it was fit for consumption when it came from wheat that was consecrated before being harvested. It could not be redeemed and made fit for consumption.

אלא להך לישנא דאמר אפילו טהורין נפדין לפרקינהו

But according to this version of what Rabbi Oshaya said: Even pure meal offerings and libations are redeemed, there remains the possibility of letting him redeem the meal offering while it is pure and before is consecrated in a service vessel. Therefore, it should be considered as having a time in which it is fit for consumption.

השתא מיהא לא פריק

The Gemara answers: In any event, now he has not redeemed it. Therefore, it is not considered to have had a time in which it is fit for consumption.

וכיון דאי בעי פריק ליה שמעינן ליה לרבי שמעון דאמר כל העומד לפדות כפדוי דמי

The Gemara asks: How can the flour be considered as not having a time in which it is fit for consumption merely because he has not redeemed it, even though he could have redeemed it? Since in a case where if he wants, he may redeem it, don’t we attribute to Rabbi Shimon that he said that for any item that stands to be redeemed, it is as if it already is redeemed?

דתניא רבי שמעון אומר פרה מטמאה טומאת אוכלין הואיל והיתה לה שעת הכושר ואמר ריש לקיש אומר היה רבי שמעון פרה נפדית על גב מערכתה

The Gemara cites a source for this assertion: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: A red heifer, even if it has been slaughtered and it is therefore prohibited to derive benefit from it, is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since it had a time in which it was fit. And Reish Lakish said, explaining how it is possible to derive from this halakha that any item that could be redeemed is considered as though it has been redeemed: Rabbi Shimon would say that a red heifer is redeemed with money even when it has already been slaughtered and placed upon its pyre in preparation for being burned. If so, a meal offering that could be redeemed should also be considered fit for consumption, as it is considered as though it has been redeemed.

הכי השתא בשלמא פרה עומדת לפדות היא שאם מצא אחרת נאה הימנה מצוה לפדותה אלא הני מנחות מצוה לפדותן

The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? Granted, with regard to the red heifer, it is considered to be an item that stands to be redeemed, since if he found another animal choicer than it, there is a mitzva to redeem the first one and purchase the choicer one with the money. But is there a mitzva to redeem these meal offerings?

והא לן לפני זריקה דמצוה למיזרקיה ואי בעי זרק וקתני דאין מטמא טומאת אוכלין

The Gemara challenges: But there is a case where sacrificial meat remained overnight before the sprinkling of the blood occurred, where there was a mitzva to sprinkle the blood the day before, and if he had wanted he could have sprinkled it, and the offering would not have been disqualified. And yet, Rabbi Shimon teaches in the baraita that sacrificial meat that remained overnight is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, even though it should have been considered fit for consumption on the day the offering was slaughtered, as the blood stood to be sprinkled and there was a mitzva to sprinkle it.

הכא במאי עסקינן שלא היתה שהות ביום למיזרקיה

The Gemara answers: Here, we are dealing with a case where there was not sufficient time remaining in the day to sprinkle the blood, as the offering was slaughtered close to sunset. Therefore, the blood did not stand to be sprinkled and the meat was therefore never fit for consumption.

אבל היתה לו שהות ביום מאי מטמא טומאת אוכלין

The Gemara asks: But in a case where the offering was slaughtered when there was sufficient time remaining in the day to sprinkle the blood, what would then be the halakha according to Rabbi Shimon? Would meat left overnight be susceptible to the ritual impurity of food?

אדתני לן לאחר זריקה מטמא טומאת אוכלין ליפלוג בדידה במה דברים אמורים שלא היתה לו שהות ביום אבל היתה לו שהות ביום מטמא טומאת אוכלין

If so, rather than Rabbi Shimon teaching the following: Sacrificial meat that was left overnight before the blood was sprinkled is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, but if left overnight after the sprinkling of the blood it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, instead let him distinguish within the case itself: In what case is this statement said? When is sacrificial meat left overnight without the blood of the offering having been sprinkled not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food? It is in a case where there was not sufficient time remaining in the day to sprinkle the blood; but if there was sufficient time remaining in the day to sprinkle the blood, it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food.

הכי נמי קאמר לן קודם שיראה לזריקה אינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין לאחר שיראה לזריקה מטמא טומאת אוכלין

The Gemara answers: That is indeed what he is say ing in the baraita, that if the offering was left overnight before it was available for sprinkling, i. e., if it was slaughtered so late in the day that there was no time left to sprinkle the blood, it is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food. By contrast, if it was left overnight after it was available for sprinkling, i. e., there was still time to sprinkle the blood, then it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food.

והא פיגל בין בקדשי קדשים בין בקדשים קלים מצוה למיזרקיה

The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Shimon in fact hold that an item that stands to be redeemed is treated as though it has already been redeemed, and is therefore considered to have had a time in which it is fit, even if it was never actually redeemed? But isn’t it so that when one renders either offerings of the most sacred order or offerings of lesser sanctity piggul, there was a mitzva to sprinkle the blood once the offering was slaughtered,