Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

October 9, 2023 | 讻状讚 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Kiddushin 57

Today’s daf is sponsored by Gail Licht in loving memory of her father, Harav Avraham Shaul Halevi Licht. “He would have been very proud of his children and grandchildren, all engaged in lives filled with Torah study and acts of chesed. Yasher Koach to my grandson Yaakov Stechler on his siyum of Mishnayot Seder Nezikin and to his dad, Rabbi Aryeh Stechler his siyum of Kiddushin in my dad’s memory.”

May our learning be in memory of all the soldiers and civilians that have been killed and for a zechut for a refuah shleima for all the injured. We continue to pray for the safety of our soldiers, those living in the South under direct attack, those taken captive and all the citizens of Israel.

From where do we derive that it is forbidden to derive benefit from the聽 egla arufa? From what moment does it become forbidden? One cannot derive benefit from the birds brought by a leper. There is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish whether it is forbidden from the moment of purchasing the birds or from the moment of slaughter. The latter is derived from the egla arufa. Rabbi Yochanan raises three difficulties against Reish Lakish’s position from tannitic sources. After the last question which is not resolved, Reish Lakish answers that it is a subject of debate among tannaim? Three different reasons are brought to explain why the slaughtered bird is the one that is forbidden to benefit from but the live one (that is sent away) is permitted. From where do we derive that it is forbidden to derive benefit from the hair of the nazir? Is the first-born donkey forbidden according to all opinions? From where do we derive the prohibition to derive benefit from milk and meat together? Whether or not it is forbidden is a subject of debate among tannaim. Two different explanations are brought for the source for chulin slaughtered in the Temple.

讗转 诇讗 讚专讬砖 讻讚转谞讬讗 砖诪注讜谉 讛注诪住讜谞讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 谞讞诪讬讛 讛注诪住讜谞讬 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 讻诇 讗转讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 转讬专讗 驻讬专砖


The Gemara answers: This Sage does not interpret the word et as a means to derive new halakhot. He considers the word 鈥et鈥 to be an ordinary part of the sentence structure and not a source for exegetical exposition. As it is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmasoni, and some say that it was Ne岣mya HaAmasoni, would interpret all occurrences of the word et鈥 in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: 鈥淵ou shall fear the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:13), which is written with the added word 鈥et,鈥 he withdrew from this method of exposition, as whose fear could be an extension of the fear of God?


讗诪专讜 诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 专讘讬 讻诇 讗转讬谉 砖讚专砖转 诪讛 转讛讗 注诇讬讛诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻砖诐 砖拽讘诇转讬 砖讻专 注诇 讛讚专讬砖讛 讻讱 拽讘诇转讬 注诇 讛驻专讬砖讛 注讚 砖讘讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诇讬诪讚 讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 转讬专讗 诇专讘讜转 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐


His students said to him: Our teacher, what will be with all the occurrences of the word et鈥 that you interpreted until now? He said to them: Just as I received reward for the exposition, so I received reward for my withdrawal from using this method of exposition. The word 鈥et鈥 in this verse was not explained until Rabbi Akiva came and expounded: 鈥淵ou shall fear the Lord your God鈥: The word 鈥et鈥 serves to include Torah scholars, i.e., that one is commanded to fear them just as one fears God. In any event, Shimon HaAmasoni no longer derived additional halakhot from the word et.


讘注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讻驻专讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛 讻拽讚砖讬诐


搂 The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with a heifer whose neck is broken, she is not betrothed. The Gemara clarifies: From where do we derive that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a heifer whose neck is broken? The school of Rabbi Yannai said: An expression of atonement was written with regard to it. The verse: 鈥淎tone for Your people Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:8), was written with regard to a heifer whose neck was broken, as was also written with regard to sacrificial animals. Therefore, one is prohibited from deriving benefit from it, just as one may not benefit from an offering.


爪讬驻讜专讬 诪爪讜专注 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 诪讘讞讜抓


搂 The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with the leper鈥檚 birds, she is not betrothed. The Gemara clarifies: From where do we derive that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a leper鈥檚 birds? As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: A mitzva that enables is stated in the verses with regard to a leper, and the Torah also discusses a mitzva that atones, both of which are performed inside the Temple. Here, a mitzva that enables is a reference to the leper鈥檚 guilt-offering, which enables him to partake of offerings; and a mitzva that atones is a reference to all other offerings. And a mitzva that enables is stated in the verses with regard to a leper, and the Torah also discusses a mitzva that atones, both of which are performed outside the Temple. Here, a mitzva that enables is a reference to the leper鈥檚 birds, which permit him to reenter the camp; and a mitzva that atones is a reference to the heifer whose neck is broken, which atones for the inhabitants of the city nearest to an unsolved murder.


诪讛 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讛讗诪讜专 讘驻谞讬诐 注砖讛 讘讜 诪讻砖讬专 讻诪讻驻专 讗祝 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讛讗诪讜专 讘讞讜抓 注砖讛 讘讜 诪讻砖讬专 讻诪讻驻专


Just as in the case of the enabling and atoning rites stated in the Torah that are performed inside the Temple the Torah made the item of the enabling rite, i.e., the leper鈥檚 guilt-offering, from which one is prohibited from deriving benefit, like the item of the atoning rite, i.e., offerings in general, so too, in the case of the enabling and atoning rites stated in the Torah that are performed outside the Temple the Torah made the item of the enabling rite, i.e., the leper鈥檚 birds, from which one is prohibited from deriving benefit, like the item of the atoning rite, i.e., the heifer whose neck is broken.


讗讬转诪专 爪讬驻讜专讬 诪爪讜专注 诪讗讬诪转讬 讗住讜专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讗 讚讗住专讛 诇讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 诪注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讛 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 诪讞讬讬诐 讗祝 爪讬驻讜专讬 诪爪讜专注 诪讞讬讬诐


It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disputed the following issue: From when is one prohibited from deriving benefit from the leper鈥檚 birds? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: From the moment of their slaughter; and Reish Lakish says: From the moment they are taken and designated to be a leper鈥檚 birds. The Gemara explains their respective opinions: Rabbi Yo岣nan says: From the moment of their slaughter, because it is the slaughter that prohibits them, since they are not consecrated beforehand. Reish Lakish says: From the moment they are taken, since this halakha is derived from the heifer whose neck is broken. Just as one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a heifer whose neck is broken during its lifetime, so too, one is prohibited from deriving benefit from the leper鈥檚 birds during their lifetime.


讜注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讙讜驻讛 诪讗讬诪转讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讙讘讜诇 砖诪注转讬 讘讛 讜砖讻讞转讬 讜谞住讘讬谉 讞讘专讬讗 诇讜诪专 讬专讬讚转讛 诇谞讞诇 讗讬转谉 讛讬讗 讗讜住专转讛 讗讬 诪讛 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 诪砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 诇讗 诪讬转住专讗 讗祝 爪讬驻讜专讬 诪爪讜专注 谞诪讬 诪砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 诇讗 诪讬转住专讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讘讜诇 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讘讜诇 讗讞专讬谞讗


The Gemara asks: And with regard to it, the heifer whose neck is broken, itself, from when is it a forbidden item? Rabbi Yannai said: I heard the boundary, i.e., stage, beyond which it is forbidden, but I have forgotten what it is. But the group of scholars were inclined to say that its descent to a hard valley, where its neck is broken, is the action that renders it forbidden. The Gemara asks: If so, just as with a heifer whose neck is broken, it is not forbidden from the moment it is taken but only afterward, so too, the leper鈥檚 birds should also not be forbidden from the moment they are taken. The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the heifer, it has another boundary that can render it forbidden, namely its descent to the valley; here, in the case of the leper鈥檚 birds, does it have another boundary? It is taken and immediately slaughtered.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 爪驻讜专 讟讛专讛 转讗讻诇讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪砖讜诇讞转 讜讝讛 讗砖专 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诪讛诐 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖讞讜讟讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讞讬讬诐 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗拽讚砖讬诐 讚诪讞讬讬诐 讗住讬专讬 讜讗转讬讗 砖讞讬讟讛 讜诪讻砖专讛 诇讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淥f all clean birds you may eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:11). The superfluous word 鈥渁ll鈥 is stated to include one of the leper鈥檚 birds, which is sent away to freedom, while the words: 鈥淏ut these are they of which you shall not eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:12), are stated to include in the prohibition the other, slaughtered bird. Rabbi Yo岣nan asks: And if it enters your mind to say that the bird is forbidden from when it is alive, is a verse necessary to teach that it is forbidden after its slaughter? The Gemara answers: The verse is necessary, lest you say: Just as it is in the case of sacrificial animals, where one is prohibited from deriving benefit from them when they are alive, and the act of slaughter comes and renders them fit to be eaten, so too with regard to the bird. The verse teaches us that with regard to the leper鈥檚 bird this is not the case, and it remains forbidden even after it has been slaughtered.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 砖讞讟讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟专讬驻讛 讬拽讞 讝讜讙 诇砖谞讬讛 讜讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讜转专转 讘讛谞讗讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讞讬讬诐 讗住讜专讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讗诪讗讬 诪讜转专转 讘讛谞讗讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞诪爪讗转 讟专讬驻讛 讘讘谞讬 诪注讬讛 讚诇讗 讞诇 注诇讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讻诇诇


Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to Reish Lakish: The mishna (Nega鈥檌m 14:5) teaches that if one slaughtered one of the leper鈥檚 birds and it was found to be a bird with a condition that would have caused it to die within twelve months [tereifa], a partner is taken for the second, i.e., remaining, bird, while with regard to the first bird, i.e., the tereifa, one is permitted to derive benefit from it. And if it enters your mind that the bird is forbidden from when it is alive, why is one permitted to derive benefit from the first one, if the prohibition took effect before it was slaughtered? Reish Lakish said to him: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the slaughtered bird was found to be a tereifa in its inner organs, so that the consecration did not take effect at all, as the bird was not fit to be used for this purpose.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 砖讞讟讛 砖诇讗 讘讗讝讜讘 讜砖诇讗 讘注抓 讗专讝 讜砖诇讗 讘砖谞讬 转讜诇注转 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜拽爪讛 诇诪爪讜转讛 讗住讜专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞砖讞讟讛 砖诇讗 讻诪爪讜转讛 诪讜转专转


Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita (Tosefta, Nega鈥檌m 8:8): If he slaughtered the bird without bringing a hyssop, or without bringing cedar wood, or without bringing a scarlet thread, which were all used in the rite, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says: Since the bird was set aside for its mitzva, it is forbidden anyway. Rabbi Shimon says: Since it was not slaughtered in accordance with its mitzva, it is permitted.


注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 诪专 住讘专 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 砖诪讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讜诪专 住讘专 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛讗 诪讞讬讬诐 诇讗 诪讬转住专讗


Rabbi Yo岣nan infers from this: They disagree only with regard to this issue, that one Sage, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, holds that an act of slaughter that is not fit for accomplishing its full ritual purpose is nevertheless considered an act of slaughter, and the bird is therefore forbidden; and one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that an act of slaughter that is not fit for accomplishing its full ritual purpose is not considered an act of slaughter at all, and therefore one is permitted to derive benefit from the bird. But everyone agrees at least that one is not prohibited from deriving benefit from it when it is alive, but only after it has been slaughtered.


转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讘讞讜抓


Reish Lakish replied: I concede that this baraita does not accord with my opinion, but this issue is a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: A mitzva that enables is stated in the verses with regard to a leper, and the Torah also discusses a mitzva that atones, both of which are performed inside the Temple. And a mitzva that enables is stated in the verses with regard to a leper, and the Torah also discusses a mitzva that atones, both of which are performed outside the Temple.


诪讛 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讛讗诪讜专 讘驻谞讬诐 注砖讛 讘讜 诪讻砖讬专 讻诪讻驻专 讗祝 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讛讗诪讜专 讘讞讜抓 注砖讛 讘讜 诪讻砖讬专 讻诪讻驻专


The baraita continues: Just as in the case of the enabling and atoning rites stated in the Torah that are performed inside the Temple the Torah made the item of the enabling rite like the item of the atoning rite, so too, in the case of the enabling and atoning rites stated in the Torah that are performed outside the Temple, the Torah made the item of the enabling rite like the item of the atoning rite. The baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael compares the leper鈥檚 birds to a heifer whose neck is broken, and therefore would also prohibit one from deriving benefit from the birds before they are slaughtered. The opinion of Reish Lakish is therefore in accordance with that baraita.


讙讜驻讗 讻诇 爪驻讜专 讟讛专讛 转讗讻诇讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪砖讜诇讞转 讜讝讛 讗砖专 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诪讛诐 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖讞讜讟讛


With regard to the matter itself, the baraita teaches: The verse states: 鈥淥f all clean birds you may eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:11). The superfluous word 鈥渁ll鈥 is stated to include one of the leper鈥檚 birds, which is sent away to freedom, while the words: 鈥淏ut these are they of which you shall not eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:12), are stated to include in the prohibition the other, slaughtered bird.


讜讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖讗住讜专讬诐 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讜诇讗 讛专讬


The Gemara questions this interpretation: And I will reverse the exposition, and say that one may derive benefit from the slaughtered bird and not from the one that was sent away. Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: The reason to expound the verse as the baraita does is that we have not found kosher living creatures that are permanently forbidden with regard to eating. Therefore, it stands to reason that the slaughtered bird is forbidden, not the living one. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k objects to this explanation: But haven鈥檛 we found kosher living animals that are permanently forbidden? But there are


诪讜拽爪讛 讜谞注讘讚 讚讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗住讬专讬 讻讬 讗住讬专讬 诇讙讘讜讛 诇讛讚讬讜讟 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬


the cases of an animal set aside as an offering to an idol, and an animal that was itself worshipped as an idol, which are living creatures and yet are permanently forbidden. The Gemara answers: There is a difference, as when they are forbidden, they are forbidden only to be used for the Most High, i.e., to be used as offerings in the Temple service, but it is permitted for a common Jew to derive benefit from them.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛专讬 专讜讘注 讜谞专讘注 讘注讚讬诐 讚讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗住讬专讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 专讜讘 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖讗住讜专讬诐


Rabbi Yirmeya objects to the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan: But an animal that copulated with a woman, and an animal that copulated with a man, in the presence of witnesses, they are living creatures and yet they are permanently forbidden, as the halakha is that these animals are killed, and one is prohibited from deriving benefit from them once they have been sentenced. Rather, the above explanation should be emended to say: Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: We have not found most kosher living creatures that are permanently forbidden while they are still alive, and it can be assumed that the inclusion of the verse is referring to that which is generally forbidden, even if there are exceptions.


讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜砖诇讞 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚讛 讻砖讚讛 诪讛 砖讚讛 诪讜转专转 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讜转专转 讛讗讬 砖讚讛 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 砖讚讛 砖诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讘讬驻讜 讜讬讝专拽谞讛 诇讬诐 讘讙讘转 讜讬讝专拽谞讛 诇诪讚讘专 讜砖诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讞讜抓 诇注讬专 讜讬讝专拽谞讛 讘转讜讱 讛注讬专 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖注讜诪讚 讘注讬专 讜讬讝专拽谞讛 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛


The Gemara offers another answer to the question of how the baraita knew which bird the verse is permitting. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: 鈥淎nd shall let go the living bird into the open field鈥 (Leviticus 14:7), which indicates that the bird is like a field: Just as a field is permitted, so too, this bird is also permitted. The Gemara asks: Is that word 鈥渇ield鈥 coming to teach this? That word is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The word 鈥渇ield鈥 teaches that one may not stand in Jaffa and throw the bird that is set free to the sea, or stand in Gevat and throw it to the desert, and that he may not stand outside the city and throw it inside the city. Rather, any manner in which he is standing in the city and throws it outside the wall to the field is valid. The word 鈥渇ield鈥 teaches that one must set it free only to the field and nowhere else, not to teach that the bird is permitted.


讜讗讬讚讱 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬讻转讜讘 拽专讗 砖讚讛 诪讗讬 讛砖讚讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬


And the other tanna, the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who derives that one is permitted to derive benefit from the bird based on the word 鈥渇ield,鈥 replies: If so, that this was the only halakha the word is teaching, let the Torah write 鈥渇ield鈥; what is the significance of 鈥渢he field鈥? Conclude two conclusions from it, i.e., both the place to throw the bird and the permission to derive benefit.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 砖诇讞 诇转拽诇讛


Rava says a different answer to the question of how the baraita knew which bird the verse is permitting: The Torah did not say 鈥渓et go鈥 for it to serve as a stumbling block. If the bird sent free was forbidden, the Torah would not have commanded him to send it away, since people might eat it unwittingly.


讘砖注专 谞讝讬专 诪谞诇谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 拽讚砖 讬讛讬讛 讙讚诇 驻专注 砖注专 专讗砖讜 讙讬讚讜诇讜 讬讛讬讛 拽讚讜砖


搂 The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with a nazirite鈥檚 hair, she is not betrothed. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a nazirite鈥檚 hair? The Gemara answers: As the verse states with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淗e shall be holy [kadosh], he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long鈥 (Numbers 6:5), which teaches: His hair growth shall be holy.


讗讬 诪讛 拽讚砖 转讜驻住 讗转 讚诪讬讜 讜讬讜爪讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗祝 砖注专 谞讝讬专 转讜驻住 讗转 讚诪讬讜 讜讬讜爪讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 诪讬 拽专讬谞谉 拽讜讚砖 拽讚讜砖 拽专讬谞谉


The Gemara asks: If the hair of a nazirite can be compared to consecrated property by use of the term 鈥渉oly,鈥 then just as with regard to consecrated property, it transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and it becomes desacralized, so too, a nazirite鈥檚 hair should transfer its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and the hair itself should become desacralized. This is not the halakha. The Gemara answers: Do we read holy [kodesh] in this verse, which is the term the verse uses for a consecrated item (see Leviticus 22:14)? We read 鈥渉oly [kadosh].鈥 Since a different conjugation of the term is used, the halakhot of the hair of a nazirite are not derived from those of consecrated property.


讘驻讟专 讞诪讜专 谞讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗讞专 注专讬驻讛 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇


搂 The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with a firstborn donkey, she is not betrothed. The Gemara suggests: Shall we say the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a firstborn donkey, deriving benefit from it is prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon permits it. Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The mishna can be referring to one who betrothed a woman with a firstborn donkey after it has had its neck broken, and everyone agrees that it is prohibited to derive benefit from the donkey once its neck is broken.


讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 转讘砖诇 讙讚讬 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 砖诇砖 驻注诪讬诐 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 讜讗讞讚 讗讬住讜专 讘讬砖讜诇


搂 The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with meat cooked in milk, she is not betrothed. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from meat cooked in milk? The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The Torah states three times: 鈥淵ou shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 (Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21). One verse serves to teach the prohibition against eating meat cooked in milk, and one verse serves to teach the prohibition against deriving benefit from meat cooked in milk, and one verse serves to teach the prohibition against cooking meat in milk.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 注诐 拽讚讜砖 讗转讛 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诇讗 转讘砖诇 讙讚讬 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗谞砖讬 拽讚砖 转讛讬讜谉 诇讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛


The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says: It is prohibited to eat meat cooked in milk but one is permitted to derive benefit from it, as it is stated: 鈥淔or you are a holy people to the Lord your God. You shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21), and it states there with regard to the prohibition of an unslaughtered animal carcass: 鈥淎nd you shall be holy men to Me鈥 (Exodus 22:30). Since both verses employ the term 鈥渉oly鈥 he derives: Just as there, in the case of an animal carcass, it is prohibited to eat it but one is permitted to derive benefit from it, as the Torah explicitly states that it may be sold to a gentile, so too here, with regard to meat cooked in milk, it is prohibited to eat it but one is permitted to derive benefit from it.


讜讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞砖讞讟讜 讘注讝专讛 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 砖讞讜讟 诇讬 讘砖诇讬 讜砖诇讱 讘砖诇讱 诪讛 砖诇讬 讘砖诇讱 讗住讜专 讗祝 砖诇讱 讘砖诇讬 讗住讜专


搂 The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with the items it enumerated, or with non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, she is not betrothed. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, i.e., that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, derived? Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: The Torah said: Slaughter for Me, i.e., for offerings to God, in My place, inside the Temple courtyard, and your non-sacred animals that are intended for eating should be slaughtered in your place, outside the Temple courtyard. Just as one is prohibited from deriving benefit from My consecrated animals if they were slaughtered in your place, as one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a consecrated animal slaughtered outside the Temple, so too, one is prohibited from deriving benefit from your non-sacred animals if they were slaughtered in My place.


讗讬 诪讛 砖诇讬 讘砖诇讱 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗祝 砖诇讱 讘砖诇讬 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诇 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜 诇讛拽专讬讘 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 讜谞讻专转 注诇 拽专讘谉 注谞讜砖 讻专转 注诇 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞砖讞讟讜 讘注讝专讛 讗讬谉 注谞讜砖 讻专转


The Gemara asks: If so, just as the act of slaughtering My consecrated animals in your place is punishable by karet, so too, to the act of slaughtering your non-sacred animals in My place should be punishable by karet. To counter this logic, the verse states: 鈥淚f a man from the house of Israel slaughters an ox or lamb鈥and has not brought it to the door of the Tent of Meeting to sacrifice an offering to the Lord鈥nd that man shall be cut off鈥 (Leviticus 17:3鈥4). This teaches that it is only for an offering that one slaughtered outside the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle, or the Temple courtyard, that he is punishable with karet, but for non-sacred animals that one slaughtered in the Temple courtyard he is not punishable with karet.


讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇砖诇讬 讘砖诇讱 砖讻谉 注谞讜砖 讻专转


The Gemara asks: In light of the above difference in halakha between these two cases, the entire comparison can be refuted in the following manner: What is an aspect unique to slaughtering My consecrated animals in your place? It is that it is punishable by karet, and is therefore a severe prohibition, which could explain the halakha that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from them. The prohibition against slaughtering a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard, which is not punishable by karet, could be regarded as a less severe prohibition, and perhaps in this case it is permitted to derive benefit from the slaughtered animal. Therefore, the halakha that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard still does not have a source.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讛讻讗 讜砖讞讟讜 讜砖讞讟 讗转讜 讜砖讞讟 讗转讜 转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讬转讬专讬 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专


Abaye quotes a lengthy baraita that serves as a source for the halakha that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. Rather, Abaye said it is derived from here: The Torah states three verses that have a superfluous element with regard to the various species from which one may bring a peace-offering: The verse 鈥渁nd he slaughters it鈥 (Leviticus 3:2), the verse 鈥渁nd he shall slaughter it鈥 (Leviticus 3:8), and the verse 鈥渁nd he shall slaughter it鈥 (Leviticus 3:13). The Torah could simply have stated: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter,鈥 without adding: 鈥淚t.鈥 Why must the verse state the term 鈥渋t鈥 these three times?


诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬专讞拽 诪诪讱 讛诪拽讜诐 讜讝讘讞转 讘专讞讜拽 诪拽讜诐 讗转讛 讝讜讘讞 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讝讜讘讞 讘诪拽讜诐 拽专讜讘 驻专讟 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖诇讗 讬砖讞讟讜 讘注讝专讛


The baraita continues: The source for the halakha is because it is stated with regard to the ritual slaughter of animals for meat consumption: 鈥淚f the place which the Lord your God shall choose to put His name there be too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:21), from which it is derived: When you are far from the place, i.e., the Temple, you may slaughter non-sacred animals for meat consumption, but you may not slaughter non-sacred animals in a near place, i.e., in the Temple. The verse serves to exclude non-sacred animals, thereby teaching that they may not be slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.


讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 转诪讬诪讬诐 讛专讗讜讬诐 诇讬拽专讘 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬诐 砖讻谉 诪讬谉 讛诪讻砖讬专 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讞讬讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讞讬讛 砖讛讬讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻讘讛诪讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注讜驻讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖讞讟讜 讜砖讞讟 讗讜转讜 讜砖讞讟 讗讜转讜


The baraita continues: And I have derived the prohibition against slaughtering a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard only with regard to unblemished animals, which are fit to be sacrificed. From where do I know to include even blemished animals, which are not fit to be sacrificed, in this prohibition? I include blemished animals since they are at least of the type that is fit to be sacrificed. From where do I know to include the undomesticated animal, which is never sacrificed as an offering, in this prohibition? I include the undomesticated animal since it is rendered fit for consumption by means of slaughtering, like a domesticated animal. From where do I know to include fowl, as the Torah does not mention slaughter with regard to fowl, in this prohibition? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he slaughters it,鈥 鈥渁nd he shall slaughter it,鈥 as well as 鈥渁nd he shall slaughter it,鈥 employing the additional term 鈥渋t鈥 each time. These three verses teach that one may not slaughter any non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard.


讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讜讗诐 砖讞讟 讬讛讗 诪讜转专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讬专讞拽 诪诪讱 讛诪拽讜诐 讜讝讘讞转 讜讗讻诇转 诪讛 砖讗转讛 讝讜讘讞 讘专讞讜拽 诪拽讜诐 讗转讛 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜讻诇 诪讛 砖讗转讛 讝讜讘讞 讘诪拽讜诐 拽专讜讘 驻专讟 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞砖讞讟讜 讘注讝专讛


The baraita continues: One might have thought that one may not slaughter ab initio but if he did slaughter it would be permitted for him to eat it. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚f the place which the Lord your God shall choose to put His name there be too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you, and you shall eat within your gates, after all the desire of your soul鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:21), which is expounded as follows: That which you slaughter in a far place, outside the Temple, you may eat, but you may not eat that which you slaughter in a near place, which excludes non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. Therefore, it is prohibited to eat a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard even after the fact.


讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 转诪讬诪讬诐


The baraita continues: And I have derived only that the prohibition against eating the meat after the fact applies to unblemished animals,


  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Kiddushin: 53 – 59 – Daf Yomi One Week at a

This week we will learn about items that have sanctity and if one can use them to betroth a woman....
talking talmud_square

Kiddushin 57: That Little Hebrew Word “Et”

On the ox that is condemned to death - how do we know that its hide is prohibited from any...

Kiddushin 57

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 57

讗转 诇讗 讚专讬砖 讻讚转谞讬讗 砖诪注讜谉 讛注诪住讜谞讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 谞讞诪讬讛 讛注诪住讜谞讬 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 讻诇 讗转讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 转讬专讗 驻讬专砖


The Gemara answers: This Sage does not interpret the word et as a means to derive new halakhot. He considers the word 鈥et鈥 to be an ordinary part of the sentence structure and not a source for exegetical exposition. As it is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmasoni, and some say that it was Ne岣mya HaAmasoni, would interpret all occurrences of the word et鈥 in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: 鈥淵ou shall fear the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:13), which is written with the added word 鈥et,鈥 he withdrew from this method of exposition, as whose fear could be an extension of the fear of God?


讗诪专讜 诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 专讘讬 讻诇 讗转讬谉 砖讚专砖转 诪讛 转讛讗 注诇讬讛诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻砖诐 砖拽讘诇转讬 砖讻专 注诇 讛讚专讬砖讛 讻讱 拽讘诇转讬 注诇 讛驻专讬砖讛 注讚 砖讘讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诇讬诪讚 讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 转讬专讗 诇专讘讜转 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐


His students said to him: Our teacher, what will be with all the occurrences of the word et鈥 that you interpreted until now? He said to them: Just as I received reward for the exposition, so I received reward for my withdrawal from using this method of exposition. The word 鈥et鈥 in this verse was not explained until Rabbi Akiva came and expounded: 鈥淵ou shall fear the Lord your God鈥: The word 鈥et鈥 serves to include Torah scholars, i.e., that one is commanded to fear them just as one fears God. In any event, Shimon HaAmasoni no longer derived additional halakhot from the word et.


讘注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讻驻专讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛 讻拽讚砖讬诐


搂 The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with a heifer whose neck is broken, she is not betrothed. The Gemara clarifies: From where do we derive that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a heifer whose neck is broken? The school of Rabbi Yannai said: An expression of atonement was written with regard to it. The verse: 鈥淎tone for Your people Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:8), was written with regard to a heifer whose neck was broken, as was also written with regard to sacrificial animals. Therefore, one is prohibited from deriving benefit from it, just as one may not benefit from an offering.


爪讬驻讜专讬 诪爪讜专注 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 诪讘讞讜抓


搂 The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with the leper鈥檚 birds, she is not betrothed. The Gemara clarifies: From where do we derive that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a leper鈥檚 birds? As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: A mitzva that enables is stated in the verses with regard to a leper, and the Torah also discusses a mitzva that atones, both of which are performed inside the Temple. Here, a mitzva that enables is a reference to the leper鈥檚 guilt-offering, which enables him to partake of offerings; and a mitzva that atones is a reference to all other offerings. And a mitzva that enables is stated in the verses with regard to a leper, and the Torah also discusses a mitzva that atones, both of which are performed outside the Temple. Here, a mitzva that enables is a reference to the leper鈥檚 birds, which permit him to reenter the camp; and a mitzva that atones is a reference to the heifer whose neck is broken, which atones for the inhabitants of the city nearest to an unsolved murder.


诪讛 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讛讗诪讜专 讘驻谞讬诐 注砖讛 讘讜 诪讻砖讬专 讻诪讻驻专 讗祝 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讛讗诪讜专 讘讞讜抓 注砖讛 讘讜 诪讻砖讬专 讻诪讻驻专


Just as in the case of the enabling and atoning rites stated in the Torah that are performed inside the Temple the Torah made the item of the enabling rite, i.e., the leper鈥檚 guilt-offering, from which one is prohibited from deriving benefit, like the item of the atoning rite, i.e., offerings in general, so too, in the case of the enabling and atoning rites stated in the Torah that are performed outside the Temple the Torah made the item of the enabling rite, i.e., the leper鈥檚 birds, from which one is prohibited from deriving benefit, like the item of the atoning rite, i.e., the heifer whose neck is broken.


讗讬转诪专 爪讬驻讜专讬 诪爪讜专注 诪讗讬诪转讬 讗住讜专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讗 讚讗住专讛 诇讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 诪注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讛 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 诪讞讬讬诐 讗祝 爪讬驻讜专讬 诪爪讜专注 诪讞讬讬诐


It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disputed the following issue: From when is one prohibited from deriving benefit from the leper鈥檚 birds? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: From the moment of their slaughter; and Reish Lakish says: From the moment they are taken and designated to be a leper鈥檚 birds. The Gemara explains their respective opinions: Rabbi Yo岣nan says: From the moment of their slaughter, because it is the slaughter that prohibits them, since they are not consecrated beforehand. Reish Lakish says: From the moment they are taken, since this halakha is derived from the heifer whose neck is broken. Just as one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a heifer whose neck is broken during its lifetime, so too, one is prohibited from deriving benefit from the leper鈥檚 birds during their lifetime.


讜注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讙讜驻讛 诪讗讬诪转讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讙讘讜诇 砖诪注转讬 讘讛 讜砖讻讞转讬 讜谞住讘讬谉 讞讘专讬讗 诇讜诪专 讬专讬讚转讛 诇谞讞诇 讗讬转谉 讛讬讗 讗讜住专转讛 讗讬 诪讛 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 诪砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 诇讗 诪讬转住专讗 讗祝 爪讬驻讜专讬 诪爪讜专注 谞诪讬 诪砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 诇讗 诪讬转住专讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讘讜诇 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讘讜诇 讗讞专讬谞讗


The Gemara asks: And with regard to it, the heifer whose neck is broken, itself, from when is it a forbidden item? Rabbi Yannai said: I heard the boundary, i.e., stage, beyond which it is forbidden, but I have forgotten what it is. But the group of scholars were inclined to say that its descent to a hard valley, where its neck is broken, is the action that renders it forbidden. The Gemara asks: If so, just as with a heifer whose neck is broken, it is not forbidden from the moment it is taken but only afterward, so too, the leper鈥檚 birds should also not be forbidden from the moment they are taken. The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the heifer, it has another boundary that can render it forbidden, namely its descent to the valley; here, in the case of the leper鈥檚 birds, does it have another boundary? It is taken and immediately slaughtered.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 爪驻讜专 讟讛专讛 转讗讻诇讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪砖讜诇讞转 讜讝讛 讗砖专 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诪讛诐 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖讞讜讟讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讞讬讬诐 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗拽讚砖讬诐 讚诪讞讬讬诐 讗住讬专讬 讜讗转讬讗 砖讞讬讟讛 讜诪讻砖专讛 诇讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淥f all clean birds you may eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:11). The superfluous word 鈥渁ll鈥 is stated to include one of the leper鈥檚 birds, which is sent away to freedom, while the words: 鈥淏ut these are they of which you shall not eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:12), are stated to include in the prohibition the other, slaughtered bird. Rabbi Yo岣nan asks: And if it enters your mind to say that the bird is forbidden from when it is alive, is a verse necessary to teach that it is forbidden after its slaughter? The Gemara answers: The verse is necessary, lest you say: Just as it is in the case of sacrificial animals, where one is prohibited from deriving benefit from them when they are alive, and the act of slaughter comes and renders them fit to be eaten, so too with regard to the bird. The verse teaches us that with regard to the leper鈥檚 bird this is not the case, and it remains forbidden even after it has been slaughtered.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 砖讞讟讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讟专讬驻讛 讬拽讞 讝讜讙 诇砖谞讬讛 讜讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讜转专转 讘讛谞讗讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讞讬讬诐 讗住讜专讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讗诪讗讬 诪讜转专转 讘讛谞讗讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞诪爪讗转 讟专讬驻讛 讘讘谞讬 诪注讬讛 讚诇讗 讞诇 注诇讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讻诇诇


Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to Reish Lakish: The mishna (Nega鈥檌m 14:5) teaches that if one slaughtered one of the leper鈥檚 birds and it was found to be a bird with a condition that would have caused it to die within twelve months [tereifa], a partner is taken for the second, i.e., remaining, bird, while with regard to the first bird, i.e., the tereifa, one is permitted to derive benefit from it. And if it enters your mind that the bird is forbidden from when it is alive, why is one permitted to derive benefit from the first one, if the prohibition took effect before it was slaughtered? Reish Lakish said to him: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the slaughtered bird was found to be a tereifa in its inner organs, so that the consecration did not take effect at all, as the bird was not fit to be used for this purpose.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 砖讞讟讛 砖诇讗 讘讗讝讜讘 讜砖诇讗 讘注抓 讗专讝 讜砖诇讗 讘砖谞讬 转讜诇注转 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜拽爪讛 诇诪爪讜转讛 讗住讜专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞砖讞讟讛 砖诇讗 讻诪爪讜转讛 诪讜转专转


Rabbi Yo岣nan raised another objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita (Tosefta, Nega鈥檌m 8:8): If he slaughtered the bird without bringing a hyssop, or without bringing cedar wood, or without bringing a scarlet thread, which were all used in the rite, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says: Since the bird was set aside for its mitzva, it is forbidden anyway. Rabbi Shimon says: Since it was not slaughtered in accordance with its mitzva, it is permitted.


注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 诪专 住讘专 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 砖诪讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讜诪专 住讘专 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛讗 诪讞讬讬诐 诇讗 诪讬转住专讗


Rabbi Yo岣nan infers from this: They disagree only with regard to this issue, that one Sage, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, holds that an act of slaughter that is not fit for accomplishing its full ritual purpose is nevertheless considered an act of slaughter, and the bird is therefore forbidden; and one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that an act of slaughter that is not fit for accomplishing its full ritual purpose is not considered an act of slaughter at all, and therefore one is permitted to derive benefit from the bird. But everyone agrees at least that one is not prohibited from deriving benefit from it when it is alive, but only after it has been slaughtered.


转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讘讞讜抓


Reish Lakish replied: I concede that this baraita does not accord with my opinion, but this issue is a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: A mitzva that enables is stated in the verses with regard to a leper, and the Torah also discusses a mitzva that atones, both of which are performed inside the Temple. And a mitzva that enables is stated in the verses with regard to a leper, and the Torah also discusses a mitzva that atones, both of which are performed outside the Temple.


诪讛 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讛讗诪讜专 讘驻谞讬诐 注砖讛 讘讜 诪讻砖讬专 讻诪讻驻专 讗祝 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讛讗诪讜专 讘讞讜抓 注砖讛 讘讜 诪讻砖讬专 讻诪讻驻专


The baraita continues: Just as in the case of the enabling and atoning rites stated in the Torah that are performed inside the Temple the Torah made the item of the enabling rite like the item of the atoning rite, so too, in the case of the enabling and atoning rites stated in the Torah that are performed outside the Temple, the Torah made the item of the enabling rite like the item of the atoning rite. The baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael compares the leper鈥檚 birds to a heifer whose neck is broken, and therefore would also prohibit one from deriving benefit from the birds before they are slaughtered. The opinion of Reish Lakish is therefore in accordance with that baraita.


讙讜驻讗 讻诇 爪驻讜专 讟讛专讛 转讗讻诇讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪砖讜诇讞转 讜讝讛 讗砖专 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诪讛诐 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖讞讜讟讛


With regard to the matter itself, the baraita teaches: The verse states: 鈥淥f all clean birds you may eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:11). The superfluous word 鈥渁ll鈥 is stated to include one of the leper鈥檚 birds, which is sent away to freedom, while the words: 鈥淏ut these are they of which you shall not eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:12), are stated to include in the prohibition the other, slaughtered bird.


讜讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖讗住讜专讬诐 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讜诇讗 讛专讬


The Gemara questions this interpretation: And I will reverse the exposition, and say that one may derive benefit from the slaughtered bird and not from the one that was sent away. Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: The reason to expound the verse as the baraita does is that we have not found kosher living creatures that are permanently forbidden with regard to eating. Therefore, it stands to reason that the slaughtered bird is forbidden, not the living one. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k objects to this explanation: But haven鈥檛 we found kosher living animals that are permanently forbidden? But there are


诪讜拽爪讛 讜谞注讘讚 讚讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗住讬专讬 讻讬 讗住讬专讬 诇讙讘讜讛 诇讛讚讬讜讟 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬


the cases of an animal set aside as an offering to an idol, and an animal that was itself worshipped as an idol, which are living creatures and yet are permanently forbidden. The Gemara answers: There is a difference, as when they are forbidden, they are forbidden only to be used for the Most High, i.e., to be used as offerings in the Temple service, but it is permitted for a common Jew to derive benefit from them.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛专讬 专讜讘注 讜谞专讘注 讘注讚讬诐 讚讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗住讬专讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 专讜讘 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖讗住讜专讬诐


Rabbi Yirmeya objects to the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan: But an animal that copulated with a woman, and an animal that copulated with a man, in the presence of witnesses, they are living creatures and yet they are permanently forbidden, as the halakha is that these animals are killed, and one is prohibited from deriving benefit from them once they have been sentenced. Rather, the above explanation should be emended to say: Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: We have not found most kosher living creatures that are permanently forbidden while they are still alive, and it can be assumed that the inclusion of the verse is referring to that which is generally forbidden, even if there are exceptions.


讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜砖诇讞 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚讛 讻砖讚讛 诪讛 砖讚讛 诪讜转专转 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讜转专转 讛讗讬 砖讚讛 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 砖讚讛 砖诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讘讬驻讜 讜讬讝专拽谞讛 诇讬诐 讘讙讘转 讜讬讝专拽谞讛 诇诪讚讘专 讜砖诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讞讜抓 诇注讬专 讜讬讝专拽谞讛 讘转讜讱 讛注讬专 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖注讜诪讚 讘注讬专 讜讬讝专拽谞讛 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛


The Gemara offers another answer to the question of how the baraita knew which bird the verse is permitting. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: 鈥淎nd shall let go the living bird into the open field鈥 (Leviticus 14:7), which indicates that the bird is like a field: Just as a field is permitted, so too, this bird is also permitted. The Gemara asks: Is that word 鈥渇ield鈥 coming to teach this? That word is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The word 鈥渇ield鈥 teaches that one may not stand in Jaffa and throw the bird that is set free to the sea, or stand in Gevat and throw it to the desert, and that he may not stand outside the city and throw it inside the city. Rather, any manner in which he is standing in the city and throws it outside the wall to the field is valid. The word 鈥渇ield鈥 teaches that one must set it free only to the field and nowhere else, not to teach that the bird is permitted.


讜讗讬讚讱 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬讻转讜讘 拽专讗 砖讚讛 诪讗讬 讛砖讚讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬


And the other tanna, the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who derives that one is permitted to derive benefit from the bird based on the word 鈥渇ield,鈥 replies: If so, that this was the only halakha the word is teaching, let the Torah write 鈥渇ield鈥; what is the significance of 鈥渢he field鈥? Conclude two conclusions from it, i.e., both the place to throw the bird and the permission to derive benefit.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 砖诇讞 诇转拽诇讛


Rava says a different answer to the question of how the baraita knew which bird the verse is permitting: The Torah did not say 鈥渓et go鈥 for it to serve as a stumbling block. If the bird sent free was forbidden, the Torah would not have commanded him to send it away, since people might eat it unwittingly.


讘砖注专 谞讝讬专 诪谞诇谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 拽讚砖 讬讛讬讛 讙讚诇 驻专注 砖注专 专讗砖讜 讙讬讚讜诇讜 讬讛讬讛 拽讚讜砖


搂 The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with a nazirite鈥檚 hair, she is not betrothed. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a nazirite鈥檚 hair? The Gemara answers: As the verse states with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淗e shall be holy [kadosh], he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long鈥 (Numbers 6:5), which teaches: His hair growth shall be holy.


讗讬 诪讛 拽讚砖 转讜驻住 讗转 讚诪讬讜 讜讬讜爪讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗祝 砖注专 谞讝讬专 转讜驻住 讗转 讚诪讬讜 讜讬讜爪讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 诪讬 拽专讬谞谉 拽讜讚砖 拽讚讜砖 拽专讬谞谉


The Gemara asks: If the hair of a nazirite can be compared to consecrated property by use of the term 鈥渉oly,鈥 then just as with regard to consecrated property, it transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and it becomes desacralized, so too, a nazirite鈥檚 hair should transfer its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and the hair itself should become desacralized. This is not the halakha. The Gemara answers: Do we read holy [kodesh] in this verse, which is the term the verse uses for a consecrated item (see Leviticus 22:14)? We read 鈥渉oly [kadosh].鈥 Since a different conjugation of the term is used, the halakhot of the hair of a nazirite are not derived from those of consecrated property.


讘驻讟专 讞诪讜专 谞讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗讞专 注专讬驻讛 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇


搂 The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with a firstborn donkey, she is not betrothed. The Gemara suggests: Shall we say the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a firstborn donkey, deriving benefit from it is prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon permits it. Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The mishna can be referring to one who betrothed a woman with a firstborn donkey after it has had its neck broken, and everyone agrees that it is prohibited to derive benefit from the donkey once its neck is broken.


讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 转讘砖诇 讙讚讬 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 砖诇砖 驻注诪讬诐 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 讜讗讞讚 讗讬住讜专 讘讬砖讜诇


搂 The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with meat cooked in milk, she is not betrothed. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from meat cooked in milk? The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The Torah states three times: 鈥淵ou shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 (Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21). One verse serves to teach the prohibition against eating meat cooked in milk, and one verse serves to teach the prohibition against deriving benefit from meat cooked in milk, and one verse serves to teach the prohibition against cooking meat in milk.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 注诐 拽讚讜砖 讗转讛 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诇讗 转讘砖诇 讙讚讬 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗谞砖讬 拽讚砖 转讛讬讜谉 诇讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛


The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says: It is prohibited to eat meat cooked in milk but one is permitted to derive benefit from it, as it is stated: 鈥淔or you are a holy people to the Lord your God. You shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21), and it states there with regard to the prohibition of an unslaughtered animal carcass: 鈥淎nd you shall be holy men to Me鈥 (Exodus 22:30). Since both verses employ the term 鈥渉oly鈥 he derives: Just as there, in the case of an animal carcass, it is prohibited to eat it but one is permitted to derive benefit from it, as the Torah explicitly states that it may be sold to a gentile, so too here, with regard to meat cooked in milk, it is prohibited to eat it but one is permitted to derive benefit from it.


讜讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞砖讞讟讜 讘注讝专讛 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 砖讞讜讟 诇讬 讘砖诇讬 讜砖诇讱 讘砖诇讱 诪讛 砖诇讬 讘砖诇讱 讗住讜专 讗祝 砖诇讱 讘砖诇讬 讗住讜专


搂 The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with the items it enumerated, or with non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, she is not betrothed. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, i.e., that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, derived? Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: The Torah said: Slaughter for Me, i.e., for offerings to God, in My place, inside the Temple courtyard, and your non-sacred animals that are intended for eating should be slaughtered in your place, outside the Temple courtyard. Just as one is prohibited from deriving benefit from My consecrated animals if they were slaughtered in your place, as one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a consecrated animal slaughtered outside the Temple, so too, one is prohibited from deriving benefit from your non-sacred animals if they were slaughtered in My place.


讗讬 诪讛 砖诇讬 讘砖诇讱 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗祝 砖诇讱 讘砖诇讬 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诇 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜 诇讛拽专讬讘 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 讜谞讻专转 注诇 拽专讘谉 注谞讜砖 讻专转 注诇 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞砖讞讟讜 讘注讝专讛 讗讬谉 注谞讜砖 讻专转


The Gemara asks: If so, just as the act of slaughtering My consecrated animals in your place is punishable by karet, so too, to the act of slaughtering your non-sacred animals in My place should be punishable by karet. To counter this logic, the verse states: 鈥淚f a man from the house of Israel slaughters an ox or lamb鈥and has not brought it to the door of the Tent of Meeting to sacrifice an offering to the Lord鈥nd that man shall be cut off鈥 (Leviticus 17:3鈥4). This teaches that it is only for an offering that one slaughtered outside the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle, or the Temple courtyard, that he is punishable with karet, but for non-sacred animals that one slaughtered in the Temple courtyard he is not punishable with karet.


讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇砖诇讬 讘砖诇讱 砖讻谉 注谞讜砖 讻专转


The Gemara asks: In light of the above difference in halakha between these two cases, the entire comparison can be refuted in the following manner: What is an aspect unique to slaughtering My consecrated animals in your place? It is that it is punishable by karet, and is therefore a severe prohibition, which could explain the halakha that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from them. The prohibition against slaughtering a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard, which is not punishable by karet, could be regarded as a less severe prohibition, and perhaps in this case it is permitted to derive benefit from the slaughtered animal. Therefore, the halakha that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard still does not have a source.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讛讻讗 讜砖讞讟讜 讜砖讞讟 讗转讜 讜砖讞讟 讗转讜 转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讬转讬专讬 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专


Abaye quotes a lengthy baraita that serves as a source for the halakha that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. Rather, Abaye said it is derived from here: The Torah states three verses that have a superfluous element with regard to the various species from which one may bring a peace-offering: The verse 鈥渁nd he slaughters it鈥 (Leviticus 3:2), the verse 鈥渁nd he shall slaughter it鈥 (Leviticus 3:8), and the verse 鈥渁nd he shall slaughter it鈥 (Leviticus 3:13). The Torah could simply have stated: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter,鈥 without adding: 鈥淚t.鈥 Why must the verse state the term 鈥渋t鈥 these three times?


诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬专讞拽 诪诪讱 讛诪拽讜诐 讜讝讘讞转 讘专讞讜拽 诪拽讜诐 讗转讛 讝讜讘讞 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讝讜讘讞 讘诪拽讜诐 拽专讜讘 驻专讟 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖诇讗 讬砖讞讟讜 讘注讝专讛


The baraita continues: The source for the halakha is because it is stated with regard to the ritual slaughter of animals for meat consumption: 鈥淚f the place which the Lord your God shall choose to put His name there be too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:21), from which it is derived: When you are far from the place, i.e., the Temple, you may slaughter non-sacred animals for meat consumption, but you may not slaughter non-sacred animals in a near place, i.e., in the Temple. The verse serves to exclude non-sacred animals, thereby teaching that they may not be slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.


讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 转诪讬诪讬诐 讛专讗讜讬诐 诇讬拽专讘 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬诐 砖讻谉 诪讬谉 讛诪讻砖讬专 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讞讬讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讞讬讛 砖讛讬讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻讘讛诪讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注讜驻讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖讞讟讜 讜砖讞讟 讗讜转讜 讜砖讞讟 讗讜转讜


The baraita continues: And I have derived the prohibition against slaughtering a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard only with regard to unblemished animals, which are fit to be sacrificed. From where do I know to include even blemished animals, which are not fit to be sacrificed, in this prohibition? I include blemished animals since they are at least of the type that is fit to be sacrificed. From where do I know to include the undomesticated animal, which is never sacrificed as an offering, in this prohibition? I include the undomesticated animal since it is rendered fit for consumption by means of slaughtering, like a domesticated animal. From where do I know to include fowl, as the Torah does not mention slaughter with regard to fowl, in this prohibition? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he slaughters it,鈥 鈥渁nd he shall slaughter it,鈥 as well as 鈥渁nd he shall slaughter it,鈥 employing the additional term 鈥渋t鈥 each time. These three verses teach that one may not slaughter any non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard.


讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讜讗诐 砖讞讟 讬讛讗 诪讜转专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讬专讞拽 诪诪讱 讛诪拽讜诐 讜讝讘讞转 讜讗讻诇转 诪讛 砖讗转讛 讝讜讘讞 讘专讞讜拽 诪拽讜诐 讗转讛 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜讻诇 诪讛 砖讗转讛 讝讜讘讞 讘诪拽讜诐 拽专讜讘 驻专讟 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞砖讞讟讜 讘注讝专讛


The baraita continues: One might have thought that one may not slaughter ab initio but if he did slaughter it would be permitted for him to eat it. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚f the place which the Lord your God shall choose to put His name there be too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you, and you shall eat within your gates, after all the desire of your soul鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:21), which is expounded as follows: That which you slaughter in a far place, outside the Temple, you may eat, but you may not eat that which you slaughter in a near place, which excludes non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. Therefore, it is prohibited to eat a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard even after the fact.


讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 转诪讬诪讬诐


The baraita continues: And I have derived only that the prohibition against eating the meat after the fact applies to unblemished animals,


Scroll To Top