Kiddushin 58

הראוים ליקרב מנין לרבות בעלי מומין מרבה אני בעלי מומין שכן מין המכשיר ומנין לרבות את החיה מרבה אני את החיה שהיא בשחיטה כבהמה מנין לרבות את העופות תלמוד לומר ושחטו ושחט אותו ושחט אותו

which are fit to be sacrificed. From where do I know to include blemished animals in this prohibition? I include blemished animals since they are at least of the type that is fit to be sacrificed. And from where do I know to include the undomesticated animal 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 birds, as the Torah does not mention slaughter with regard to birds, in this prohibition? The verse states: “And he slaughters it,” “and he shall slaughter it,” as well as “and he shall slaughter it,” employing the addition term “it” each time. These three verses teach that one may not eat from a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard

יכול לא ישחוט ואם שחט ישליכנו לפני כלבים תלמוד לומר לכלב תשלכון אתו אותו אתה משליך לכלב ואי אתה משליך חולין שנשחטו בעזרה

The baraita continues: One might have thought that he may not slaughter a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard ab initio, but if he did slaughter it, he may cast it before the dogs, i.e., derive benefit from it. The verse states: “Therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs” (Exodus 22:30), which teaches that although one is prohibited from eating the meat of a tereifa, one may derive benefit from it. The word “it” serves to emphasize and exclude: You may cast it, i.e., a tereifa, to the dogs, but you may not cast non-sacred animals that have been slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, as it is prohibited to derive any benefit from them.

אשכחינהו מר יהודה לרב יוסף ולרב שמואל בריה דרבה בר בר חנה דהוו קיימי אפיתחא דבי רבה אמר להו תניא המקדש בפטר חמור בבשר בחלב ובחולין שנשחטו בעזרה רבי שמעון אומר מקודשת וחכמים אומרים אינה מקודשת אלמא חולין שנשחטו בעזרה לרבי שמעון לאו דאורייתא

The Gemara relates: Mar Yehuda found Rav Yosef and Rav Shmuel, son of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, standing at the entrance of Rabba’s study hall. He said to them: It is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who betroths a woman with a firstborn donkey, with meat cooked in milk, or with non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, Rabbi Shimon says she is betrothed, and the Rabbis say she is not betrothed. Apparently, according to Rabbi Shimon, the prohibition against deriving benefit from non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is not by Torah law, which is why the betrothal takes effect.

ורמינהו רבי שמעון אומר חולין שנשחטו בעזרה ישרפו וכן חיה שנשחטה בעזרה אישתיקו

And Mar Yehuda raises a contradiction against this inference from a different baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Non-sacred, domesticated, animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard must be burned, as well as a non-sacred undomesticated animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. This indicates that it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. They were silent and had no answer.

אתו לקמיה דרבה אמר להו פלגא אוקמינכי הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנשחטה ונמצאת טריפה ורבי שמעון לטעמיה

They came before Rabba and told him about this difficulty. He said to them: A quarrelsome person has put you up to asking this question. With what are we dealing here in the first baraita? We are dealing with a case where it was slaughtered and found to be a tereifa, and Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning that an act of slaughter which does not render the animal permitted to be eaten is not called slaughter, so the animal does not have the status of a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.

דתניא השוחט את הטריפה וכן השוחט ונמצאת טריפה זה וזה חולין בעזרה רבי שמעון מתיר בהנאה וחכמים אוסרים

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ḥullin 2:4): With regard to one who slaughters a known tereifa, as well as one who slaughters an animal and it was found to be a tereifa, and this and that were non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, Rabbi Shimon permits one to derive benefit from them, as explained previously. And the Rabbis prohibit one from deriving benefit from them, since they do not distinguish between an act of slaughter that does render the animal permitted to be eaten and one that does not. It is only in a case where the man betrothed her with a tereifa that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard that Rabbi Shimon says she is betrothed, but not when the animal was not a tereifa.

מכרן וקידש בדמיהן מקודשת מנלן מדגלי רחמנא בעבודה זרה והיית חרם כמהו כל שאתה מהייה הימנה הרי הוא כמוהו מכלל דכל איסורים שבתורה שרו

§ The mishna teaches that if one sold any of the items from which one is prohibited to derive benefit and betrothed a woman with the money received from their sale, she is betrothed. With regard to the possibility of deriving benefit from money received in exchange for items from which benefit is forbidden, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive that this is permitted? The Gemara answers: It is from the fact that the Merciful One reveals in the Torah with regard to an object of idol worship: “And you shall be banned like it” (Deuteronomy 7:26), which teaches that anything that you cause to come from it, i.e., in exchange for it, is like it. It can be understood by inference that with regard to all the other prohibitions of the Torah, monies received for items from which benefit is forbidden are permitted.

ונילף מינה משום דהוה עבודה זרה ושביעית שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין

The Gemara suggests: But let us derive a general principle concerning other prohibitions from the case of idolatry. The Gemara answers: This derivation is not applied, because an object of idol worship and produce of the Sabbatical Year are two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter, since both prohibitions also extend to the money obtained for them, and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases.

עבודה זרה הא דאמרן שביעית מאי היא יובל היא קדש תהיה לכם מה קודש תופס את דמיו אף שביעית תופסת דמיה

The Gemara clarifies: The source indicating that this is true of an object of idol worship is what we said. What is the source indicating that this halakha applies to produce of the Sabbatical Year? The verse states: “It is a Jubilee, it shall be holy to you” (Leviticus 25:12), from which it is derived: Just as consecrated property transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed, so too, produce of the Sabbatical Year, which has the same status as the Jubilee Year, transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed. Consequently, money used to acquire the produce of the Sabbatical Year will be subject to the same halakhot as the produce itself.

אי מה קודש תופס את דמיו ויוצא לחולין אף שביעית תופסת דמיה ויוצאה לחולין תלמוד לומר תהיה בהוייתה תהא

If so, one could also say that just as with consecrated property, it transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and becomes desacralized, so too, produce of the Sabbatical Year should transfer its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and becomes desacralized. Nevertheless, the verse states: “Shall be,” meaning: As it is, so it shall be, indicating that the Sabbatical-Year produce does not become desacralized.

כיצד לקח בפירות שביעית בשר אלו ואלו מתבערים בשביעית בבשר דגים יצא בשר נכנסו דגים בדגים יין יצאו דגים נכנס יין ביין שמן יצא יין נכנס שמן הא כיצד אחרון אחרון נתפס בשביעית ופירי עצמו אסור

The Gemara explains: How so? If one purchased meat with produce of the Sabbatical Year, both these and those, i.e., the meat and the produce, are disposed of in the Sabbatical Year. The sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect with regard to the meat as well. It is treated like the produce, and must be disposed of when the obligation to dispose of the Sabbatical-Year produce goes into effect. If he then purchases fish with this meat, the meat loses its consecrated status, and the fish assumes the consecrated state. If he then purchases wine with these fish, the fish loses its consecrated status and the wine assumes the consecrated state. If he then purchases oil with the wine, the wine loses has its consecrated status and the oil assumes the consecrated state. How so? The final item purchased has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year transferred to it, and the Sabbatical-Year produce itself remains forbidden.

הניחא למאן דאמר אין מלמדין אלא למאן דאמר מלמדין מאי איכא למימר מיעוטי כתיבי כתיב הכא כי חרם הוא וכתיב התם יובל היא היא אין מידי אחרינא לא

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases. But according to the one who says that they do teach their common aspect to apply to other cases, what can be said? Why is it not learned from these examples that money received from the sale of an item from which benefit is forbidden, is likewise forbidden? The Gemara answers: Expressions of restriction are written in both cases. Here, with regard to idol worship, it is written: “For it is banned” (Deuteronomy 7:26), which indicates only that it is banned, i.e., has its prohibition extend to money received from its sale, while other prohibited items are not. And there, with regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year, it is written: “It is a Jubilee” (Leviticus 25:12), which teaches that with regard to “it,” yes, this halakha applies; but this halakha does not apply to anything else.

מתני׳ המקדש בתרומות ובמעשרות ובמתנות ובמי חטאת ובאפר חטאת הרי זו מקודשת ואפילו ישראל

MISHNA: With regard to one who betroths a woman with terumot, or with tithes, or with the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach of an animal, which are given as gifts to priests, or with the water of purification, which is sprinkled on an impure person during the purification rite for impurity imparted by a corpse, or with the ashes of purification, which were mixed with the water sprinkled on an impure person during the purification rite for impurity imparted by a corpse, in all of these cases she is betrothed, and this is so even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite, not a priest or a Levite.

גמ׳ אמר עולא טובת הנאה אינה ממון איתיביה רבי אבא לעולא המקדש בתרומות ובמעשרות ובמתנות במי חטאת ובאפר פרה הרי זו מקודשת ואפילו ישראל

GEMARA: Ulla says: The benefit of discretion, i.e., the benefit accrued from the option of giving teruma and tithes to whichever priest or Levite one chooses, does not have monetary value. Rabbi Abba raised an objection to Ulla from the mishna: With regard to one who betroths a woman with terumot, or with tithes, or with gifts, with the water of purification, or with the ashes of the red heifer, she is betrothed, and this is so even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite. This indicates that although an Israelite cannot consume the priestly gifts, he may nevertheless betroth a woman with them, since he possesses the option to give them to the priest or Levite of his choice. That benefit has monetary value, and it is that value that he uses to betroth a woman, who can then give them to whichever priest or Levite she chooses.

אמר ליה הכא בישראל שנפלו לו טבלים מבית אבי אמו כהן וקא סבר מתנות שלא הורמו כמי שהורמו דמיין

Ulla said to him: You have misunderstood the case of the mishna, since here the case is with an Israelite who came into possession of untithed produce as an inheritance from the household of his mother’s father, who was a priest, and the tanna of the mishna holds that gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated. The untithed produce is not viewed as one entity, but rather is viewed as a mixture of regular produce, teruma, and tithes. This teruma belonged to his grandfather, who was a priest. Since he has inherited this teruma, he has ownership rights to it in addition to the benefit of discretion. While he cannot consume this produce because he is an Israelite, he can sell it to a priest and keep the money. Since it has actual value, it can be used to betroth a woman.

בעא מיניה רבי חייא בר אבין מרב הונא טובת הנאה ממון או אינה ממון אמר ליה תניתוה המקדש בתרומות ובמעשרות ובמתנות במי חטאת ובאפר פרה הרי זו מקודשת ואפילו ישראל אמר ליה ולאו אוקימנא בישראל שנפלו לו טבלים מבית אבי אמו כהן

With regard to this issue, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin inquired of Rav Huna: Does the benefit of discretion have monetary value, or does it not have monetary value? Rav Huna said to him: You learned it in the mishna: With regard to one who betroths a woman with terumot, or with tithes, or with gifts, or with the water of purification, or with the ashes of the red heifer, she is betrothed, and this is so even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite. This indicates that the benefit of discretion has monetary value. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: But didn’t we establish it, in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as referring to an Israelite who came into possession of untithed produce as an inheritance from the household of his mother’s father, who was a priest?

אמר ליה הוצאה את איכסיף הוא סבר משמעתא קאמר ליה אמר ליה הכי קאמינא רב אסי דהוצל קאי כותיך

Rav Huna said to him: You are out [hotza’a]. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin was embarrassed, as he thought Rav Huna told him he was out, i.e., wrong, due to the halakha he stated. Sensing Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin’s embarrassment, Rav Huna said to him: This is what I said: You are a Hutzla’a, as Rav Asi, from the town of Huzal, stands in accordance with your opinion.

נימא כתנאי הגונב טבלו של חבירו משלם לו דמי טבלו של חבירו דברי רבי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר אינו משלם אלא דמי חולין שבו מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר טובת הנאה ממון ומר סבר טובת הנאה אינה ממון

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. The baraita (Tosefta, Ma’aser Sheni 3:9) taught: One who steals another’s untithed produce pays him the full value of the other’s untithed produce; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He pays only the value of the non-sacred produce that it contains. What, is it not the case that they disagree about this issue: That one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that the benefit of discretion has monetary value, so he must be compensated beyond the value of the non-sacred produce; and one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the benefit of discretion does not have monetary value, and only the non-sacred produce is of value to the owner.

לא דכולי עלמא טובת הנאה אינה ממון והכא בטבלים שנפלו לו מבית אבי אמו כהן ובמתנות שלא הורמו כמי שהורמו דמיין קמיפלגי מר סבר כמי שהורמו דמיין ומר סבר לאו כמי שהורמו דמיין

The Gemara rejects this: No, everyone agrees that the benefit of discretion does not have monetary value, and here the case is with an Israelite who came into possession of untithed produce as an inheritance from the household of his mother’s father, who was a priest. And they disagree with regard to the question of whether or not gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that they are considered as though they have been separated, which means that the grandson inherited the teruma itself from his grandfather, so the thief must repay him the value of the terumot and tithes as well. And one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that such gifts are not considered as though they have been separated; and the produce is viewed as regular untithed produce, where the Israelite has only the benefit of discretion, which is of no monetary value.

ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא כמי שהורמו דמיין וטובת הנאה אינה ממון והכא בדשמואל קמיפלגי דאמר שמואל חיטה אחת פוטרת את הכרי

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the gifts are considered as though they have been separated, and that the benefit of discretion does not have monetary value. The case is not concerning an Israelite who came into possession of untithed produce as an inheritance from the household of his mother’s father; rather, it is concerning regular untithed produce, and here they disagree with regard to a statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: By Torah law, even one grain given as teruma exempts the entire heap, since the Torah does not specify a minimum amount for teruma.

דמר אית ליה דשמואל ומר לית ליה דשמואל

As one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, so the thief must pay the value of the untithed produce as well, since the owner can say that he would separate a single grain as teruma for the entire heap and the rest would remain non-sacred produce. And one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is of the opinion that the ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, which means that when the owner makes his claim he must subtract at least one-sixtieth of the total amount as teruma.

ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא לית להו דשמואל והכא היינו טעמא דרבי דקנסוהו רבנן לגנב

And if you wish, say instead that everyone is of the opinion that the ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel; and here, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Although the benefit of discretion does not have monetary value, and by right should not lead to reimbursement, the Sages penalized the thief. If he did not need to pay for the teruma contained in the produce, he would have been able to keep it, as no priest has the legal ability to demand that the teruma be given specifically to him.

ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא אית להו דשמואל והכא היינו טעמא דרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה דקנסוהו רבנן לבעל הבית דלא איבעי ליה לשהויה לטיבליה

And if you wish, say instead that everyone is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and here, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: The Sages penalized the owner, since he should not have left his untithed produce in that state, and should have separated teruma without delay.

תנן המקדש בתרומות ובמעשרות ובמתנות במי חטאת ובאפר פרה הרי זו מקודשת ואף על פי ישראל ורמינהו הנוטל שכר לדון דיניו בטלים להעיד עדותו בטלה להזות ולקדש מימיו מי מערה ואפרו אפר מקלה

We learned in the mishna: With regard to one who betroths a woman with terumot, or with tithes, or with the gifts given to priests, or with the water of purification, or with the ashes of the red heifer, in all of these cases she is betrothed, and this is so even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite. And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from the following baraita (Tosefta, Bekhorot 3:5): With regard to one who accepts payment to judge, his judgments are nullified. Similarly, with regard to one who accepts payment to testify, his testimony is nullified. With regard to one who accepts payment to sprinkle the purification water on one who was impure from impurity imparted by a corpse, or to sanctify the purification water by placing the ashes of the red heifer in them, his water is considered cave water, which is generally foul, and his ashes are burnt ashes. Using these items to betroth a woman is analogous to being paid for them, so they should be considered as having no monetary value, and the betrothal should not take effect.

אמר אביי לא קשיא כאן בשכר הבאה ומילוי כאן בשכר הזאה וקידוש

Abaye said: This is not difficult, since here, the mishna is referring to one who betroths a woman with the value of the payment for bringing and filling the vessel with the purification waters, for which one is permitted to accept payment. Performing this act for the woman is comparable to giving her an item of value, since she will not have to pay someone to bring and fill the vessel for her. There, the baraita dealing with one who accepts payment for sprinkling or sanctifying the water is referring to payment for the actual sprinkling and sanctifying.

דיקא נמי דקתני הכא במי חטאת ובאפר פרה וקתני התם להזות ולקדש שמע מינה

The Gemara comments: According to this answer, the language of the mishna and the baraita is also precise, as it teaches here, in the mishna, that she is betrothed with the water of purification or with the ashes of purification, which indicates that the water and ashes have not yet been mixed together; and it teaches there, in the baraita: To sprinkle or to sanctify, indicating that he receives payment for the actual sprinkling and sanctification. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the correct explanation of the mishna and the baraita.

הדרן עלך האיש מקדש

May return to you “a man betroths”

האומר לחבירו צא וקדש לי אשה פלונית והלך וקדשה לעצמו מקודשת לשני וכן האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי לאחר שלשים יום ובא אחר וקידשה בתוך שלשים יום מקודשת לשני בת ישראל לכהן תאכל בתרומה

MISHNA: With regard to one man who says to another: Go and betroth so-and-so to me, and the latter went and betrothed her to himself, she is betrothed to the second man. And similarly, with regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me after thirty days, and another man came and betrothed her within those thirty days, she is betrothed to the second man. This is a full-fledged betrothal, so that if she is an Israelite woman betrothed to a priest, she may partake of teruma.

מעכשיו ולאחר שלשים יום ובא אחר וקידשה בתוך שלשים יום מקודשת ואינה מקודשת בת ישראל לכהן או בת כהן לישראל לא תאכל בתרומה

If the first man said to the woman: You are hereby betrothed to me from now, and only after thirty days shall the betrothal take effect, and another man came and betrothed her within those thirty days, there is uncertainty whether she is betrothed or whether she is not betrothed to each of them. Consequently, if she was the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest, or the daughter of a priest betrothed to an Israelite, she may not partake of teruma. Since her betrothal is uncertain, the daughter of a non-priest cannot be considered the wife of a priest, and similarly a priest’s daughter who is doubtfully married to an Israelite loses her right to partake of teruma as the daughter of a priest.

גמ׳ האומר לחבירו צא וקדש תנא מה שעשה עשוי אלא שנהג בו מנהג רמאות ותנא דידן הלך נמי דקתני הלך ברמאות

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that in the case of one man who says to another: Go and betroth so-and-so to me, and the latter went and betrothed her to himself, she is betrothed to the second man. A tanna taught concerning this issue: What he did is done; it is effective and the woman is betrothed to the second man, but he has treated him, i.e., the first man, in a deceitful manner, and it is prohibited to act in this fashion. The Gemara explains: And the tanna of our mishna, when he teaches the apparently superfluous term: Went, also indicates that he went and acted deceitfully.

מאי שנא הכא דקתני האומר לחבירו

§ The Gemara asks a question concerning the language of the mishna: What is different here that the mishna teaches: With regard to one man who says to another,