Kiddushin 112

כשברח וטעמא דברח הא לא ברח קנסינן למוכר ונקנסיה ללוקח לאו עכברא גנב אלא חורא גנב

This [holds good] if he [the vendor] has fled. Thus, the reason is that he has fled, but otherwise, we penalize the vendor:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By making him return the money.');">¹</span> but let us penalize the purchaser?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he should spend an equal sum in Jerusalem, or go to the vendor and declare, 'The money you hold is redeemed by this money I have,' and then expend the new money in Jerusalem (Tosaf.) .');">²</span>

ואי לא עכברא חורא מאי קעביד מסתברא כל היכא דאיכא איסורא התם קנסינן

- Not the mouse steals, but the hole steals!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The vendor makes possible this misuse of the money.');">³</span> Yet but for the mouse, what harm is done by the hole! - It is reasonable that where the transgression lies, there we impose a penalty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The transgression, i.e., the money wrongly expended, lies with the vendor: hence he is penalized by the cancellation of the sale.');">⁴</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF HE BETROTHS [A WOMAN] WITH 'ORLAH, OR KIL'AYIM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המקדש בערלה בכלאי הכרם בשור הנסקל ובעגלה ערופה בצפורי מצורע ובשער נזיר ופטר חמור ובשר בחלב וחולין שנשחטו בעזרה אינה מקודשת מכרן וקידש בדמיהן מקודשת

OF THE VINEYARD, OR AN OX CONDEMNED TO BE STONED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXI, 28f.');">⁶</span> OR THE HEIFER WHICH IS TO BE BEHEADED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXI, 1-9.');">⁷</span> OR A LEPER'S BIRD-OFFERINGS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XIV, 1ff.');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> בערלה מנלן דתניא (ויקרא יט, כג) ערלים לא יאכל אין לי אלא איסור אכילה הנאה מנין שלא יהנה ממנו ולא יצבע בו ולא ידליק בו את הנר ת"ל (ויקרא יט, כג) וערלתם (את) ערלתו לרבות את כולם

OR A NAZIRITE'S HAIR, OR THE FIRSTLING OF AN ASS, OR MEAT [SEETHED] IN MILK,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIII, 19.');">⁹</span> OR HULLIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹⁰</span> SLAUGHTERED IN THE TEMPLE COURT, SHE IS NOT BETROTHED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because all benefit of these is forbidden; hence she receives nothing of value.');">¹¹</span>

בכלאי הכרם מנלן אמר חזקיה אמר קרא (דברים כב, ט) פן תקדש פן תוקד אש

IF HE SELLS THEM AND BETROTHS [HER] WITH THE PROCEEDS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'their money'.');">¹²</span> SHE IS BETROTHED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because their forbidden character is not transferred to the money.');">¹³</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>WITH 'ORLAH: How do we know it? - Because it was taught: They shall be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 23.');">¹⁴</span>

רב אשי אמר פן יהיה קדש אי מה קדש תופס את דמיו ויוצא לחולין אף כלאי הכרם תופס את דמיו ויוצא לחולין אלא מחוורתא כדחזקיה

thus I know only the prohibition of eating; whence do we know [that all] benefit [is forbidden], [i.e.,] that one must derive no benefit therefrom, [e.g. ,] not dye nor kindle a lamp therewith? From the verse: 'Then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised,' which includes all. [WITH] KIL'AYIM OF THE VINEYARD.

שור הנסקל מנין דתניא ממשמע שנאמר (שמות כא, כח) סקול יסקל השור איני יודע שנבילה היא ונבילה אסורה באכילה מה ת"ל לא יאכל את בשרו מגיד לך שאם שחטו לאחר שנגמר דינו אסור באכילה

How do we know it? - Said Hezekiah, Scripture saith, [Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds:] lest [the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard,] be defiled [tikdash]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 9.');">¹⁵</span> i.e., tukad esh [it shall be burnt in fire]. R'Ashi said: [Interpret,] it be as sanctified.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence forbidden. Thus on both versions all benefit of kil'ayim is forbidden.');">¹⁶</span>

בהנאה מנין ת"ל (שמות כא, כח) ובעל השור נקי מאי משמע שמעון בן זומא אומר כאדם שאומר לחבירו יצא פלוני נקי מנכסיו ואין לו בהם הנאה של כלום

If so, just as a sanctified object transfers its character to its purchase price,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'holds its money', i.e., if sold, its prohibition passes on to the money paid.');">¹⁷</span> and itself becomes hullin, so should kil'ayim of the vineyard transfer its character to its purchase price, and itself become hullin?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the Mishnah states that its prohibition is not transferable.');">¹⁸</span> Hence it must clearly be [explained] as Hezekiah.

ממאי דהאי לא יאכל את בשרו להיכא דשחיט לאחר שנגמר דינו הוא דאתא דילמא היכא דשחיט לאחר שנגמר דינו שרי והא לא יאכל היכא דסקליה מיסקל הוא דאתא וכדר' אבהו א"ר אלעזר

[WITH] AN OX CONDEMNED TO BE STONED. How do we know it? - Because it was taught: From the implication of the verse, the ox shall be surely stoned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 28,');">¹⁹</span> do I not know that it is nebelah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">²⁰</span>

דא"ר אבהו א"ר אלעזר כל מקום שנאמר לא יאכל לא תאכל ולא תאכלו אחד איסור אכילה ואחד איסור הנאה עד שיפרט לך הכתוב כדרך שפרט לך בנבילה

which is forbidden as food? Why then is it stated, and his flesh shall not be eaten?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 28,');">¹⁹</span> It informs you that if it was killed after the trial was ended,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., after sentence.');">²¹</span>

הני מילי היכא דנפקא לן איסור אכילה מלא יאכל הכא איסור אכילה מסקול יסקל נפקא דאי ס"ד לאיסור הנאה הוא דכתיב נכתוב קרא לא יהנה

it may not be eaten, How do we know that benefit [is forbidden]? From the verse, and the owner of the ox shall be clear. How is this implied? - Said Simeon B'Zoma: As a man may say to his friend, 'So-and-so has gone out clear from his property, and has no benefit whatsoever from it.'

אי נמי לא יאכל את בשרו למה לי אע"ג דשחטיה כעין בשר אסור

Now, how do you know that this [verse], 'and his flesh shall tot be eaten,' comes [to teach the law] if it is [ritually] killed after the trial is ended: perhaps where it is killed after sentence, it is permitted, and this [verse], 'and it shall not be eaten,' refers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., comes.');">²²</span> to when it is indeed stoned, and [its teaching is that of] R'Abbahu in R'Eleazar's name. For R'Abbahu said in R'Eleazar's name: Wherever it is said: It shall not, be eaten, thou shalt not eat, ye shall not eat, the prohibitions of both eating and benefit [in general] are understood, unless the writ expressly states [otherwise], as it does in the case of nebelah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 21: Ye shall not eat any nebelah: thou mayest give it unto the stranger . . or sell it unto a foreigner. Now, a stoned ox is nebelah, and so I might think that benefit is permitted; therefore Scripture states that its flesh shall not be eaten, thus intimating the contrary. And as to the verse 'and the owner of the ox shall be clear', it is needed for some other deduction v. infra.');">²³</span>

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.');">²⁴</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?');">²⁵</span> or, 'it shall not be eaten': why add, 'its flesh'?

והשתא דנפקא לן איסור אכילה ואיסור הנאה תרוייהו מלא יאכל האי בעל השור נקי למאי אתא להנאת עורו סלקא דעתך אמינא לא יאכל את בשרו כתיב בשרו אסור ועורו מותר

[To shew that] even if it slaughtered like [other] flesh, it is [still] forbidden. Mar Zutra objected: Yet perhaps that is only if one examines a stone, [finds its edge perfectly free from a notch] and kills therewith, for it looks like stoning; but not if it is slaughtered with a knife? - Is then a kn stipulated in the Torah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Torah does not state that only a knife must be used in ritual killing: hence no distinction can be drawn.');">²⁶</span> Moreover, it was taught: One may slaughter with everything,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which has a cutting edge free from notches. - Nevertheless, it had to be sharp enough to cut through the wind pipe and the gullet without undue delay; v, J.D. 23, - 4.');">²⁷</span>

ולהנך תנאי דמפקי ליה האי בעל השור נקי לחצי כופר ולדמי ולדות הנאת עורו מנא להו

with a stone, glass, or a reed haulm. But now that the prohibitions of both eating and benefit are derived from, 'it shall not be eaten,' what is the purpose of this [clause], 'and the owner of the ox shall be clear'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was interpreted in the same way; supra.');">²⁸</span> - In respect of the benefit of its skin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teaching that even that is forbidden.');">²⁹</span>

מאת בשרו את הטפל לבשרו ואידך

I might think, 'its flesh shall not be eaten' is written: [hence] its flesh is forbidden while its hide permitted. Now, according to those Tannaim who employ this verse: 'and the owner of the ox shall be clear', as referring to half ransom and indemnification for children,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ransom, v. Ex. XXI, 28-30, 35f; it might be thought, by comparing these verses, that half ransom is payable. Payment for child: v. ibid. 22; I might think that the same holds good when the damage is done by a man's ox. Therefore 'and the owner of the ox shall be clear' (E.V. quit) teaches that he is free from both.');">³⁰</span> how do they know [that] the benefit of the hide [is forbidden]? - From 'eth besaro' ['its flesh'], meaning, that which is joined to its flesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding eth, the sign of the acc., as an extending particle.');">³¹</span> And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What does eth teach on his view?');">³²</span>