Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Commentary for Kiddushin 112:13

מתקיף לה מר זוטרא ואימא ה"מ היכא דבדק צור ושחט בה דמיחזי כסקילה אבל שחטיה בסכין לא מידי סכין באורייתא כתיב ועוד תניא בכל שוחטין בין בצור בין בזכוכית בין בקרומית של קנה

- That is only where the prohibition of food is derived from, it shall not be eaten;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then R. Abbahu's exegesis shews that 'eating' includes all benefit.');"><sup>24</sup></span> but here the prohibition of eating follows from, 'it shalt surely be stoned': for should you think that it is written to intimate prohibition of benefit, Scripture should state, 'and he shall not benefit',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When both eating and general benefit are to be forbidden, it is reasonable that the former only is mentioned as including the latter. But when only the latter is needed, the former already being known, surely benefit should be expressly stated?');"><sup>25</sup></span> or, 'it shall not be eaten': why add, 'its flesh'?

Daf Shevui to Kiddushin

Mar Zutra suggests that maybe the Torah prohibits eating the ox only if it is stoned or slaughtered with a sharp stone. This would be almost like the animal was stoned, which is the reference point of the verse. But if the ox is slaughtered with a knife, maybe it should be permitted to eat its flesh.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Daf Shevui to Kiddushin

Mar Zutra is rejected. The Torah does not mandate that slaughtering be done with a knife. It can be done with any sharp instrument. Therefore when the baraita says that the flesh is prohibited even if it was slaughtered in a kosher manner would hold true even if slaughtered with a stone.
We should note that in reality, the Torah says nothing about how slaughtering of non-sacrificial animals is supposed to be done. This is an interesting topic, but this is not the place to go into it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse