Reference for Kiddushin 115:4

ורמינהו ר"ש אומר חולין שנשחטו בעזרה ישרפו וכן חיה שנשחטה בעזרה אישתיקו

Said he to them: It was taught: If one betroths [a woman] with the firstling of an ass, meat [seethed] in milk, or hullin killed in the Temple Court, R'Simeon maintained: She is betrothed; while the Sages rule: She is not betrothed. This proves that in R'Simeon's opinion hullin killed in the Temple Court is not Biblically forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if it were, it is worthless, since one may derive no benefit from it. But if it is Biblically permitted, she receives something of value, and is betrothed; when the Rabbis then forbid all benefit from it, they cannot thereby nullify a betrothal that is Biblically valid. - The reason of this Rabbinical interdict is that one seeing it may mistake it for a sacrifice that became unfit after it was killed, so that its blood could not be sprinkled, and think that one may benefit from such, whereas that is forbidden.');">³</span> But the following contradicts it: R'Simeon said: Hullin that was killed in the Temple Court must be burned, and likewise a beast of chase killed in the Temple Court!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But burial is insufficient. Now, if the interdict is only Rabbinical, why this stringency? Granted that it may be necessary in the case of an animal, which can be mistaken for a sacrifice which became unfit after it was killed (which must be burned, not buried) , yet why demand it for a beast of chase, which cannot be mistaken? Hence the interdict must be Biblical: then it is logical that the Rabbis were stringent in the method of disposal.');">⁴</span>

Explore reference for Kiddushin 115:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.