Kiddushin 114

מוקצה ונעבד דבעלי חיים נינהו ואסירי כי אסירי לגבוה להדיוט מישרא שרי

what of a designated animal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An animal designated as an idolatrous sacrifice.');">¹</span> and a worshipped animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One itself worshipped as an idol.');">²</span> which though living creatures, are yet forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As sacrifices.');">³</span>

מתקיף לה רבי ירמיה הרי רובע ונרבע בעדים דבעלי חיים נינהו ואסירי אלא אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי לא מצינו רוב בעלי חיים שאסורים

- They are forbidden only in respect of the Most High, but are indeed permitted for ordinary use.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for a layman'.');">⁴</span> R'Jeremiah demurred: But animals, active or passive participants in bestiality attested by witnesses, are living creatures and yet forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are stoned, and benefit is forbidden as soon as they are sentenced.');">⁵</span> But, said R'Johanan, we do not find as a rule live creatures that are [permanently] forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is illogical to reverse it.');">⁶</span>

דבי ר' ישמעאל תנא דאמר קרא (ויקרא יד, ז) ושלח על פני השדה כשדה מה שדה מותרת אף האי נמי מותרת האי שדה להכי הוא דאתא ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא שדה שלא יעמוד ביפו ויזרקנה לים בגבת ויזרקנה למדבר ושלא יעמוד חוץ לעיר ויזרקנה בתוך העיר אלא כל שעומד בעיר ויזרקנה חוץ לחומה

The School of R'Ishmael taught: Because Scripture saith, and he shall let go the living bird it to the open field:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 7.');">⁷</span> just as the field is permitted, so is this [bird] too permitted. Does 'field' come to teach this?

ואידך א"כ ניכתוב קרא שדה מאי השדה שמע מינה תרתי

But it required for what was taught.' Field' [teaches] that one must not stand in Joppa<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jaffa. On the sea coast.');">⁸</span> and cast it into the sea, or Gabbath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Later name For Gibbethon, in the territory of Dan. It bordered on the desert.');">⁹</span>

רבא אמר לא אמרה תורה שלח לתקלה

and cast it to the wilderness, or stand without the city and throw it into the city; but he must stan within the city and throw it beyond the wall. And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The School of R. Ishmael: how do they know this?');">¹⁰</span> - If so, Scripture should write, 'field': why 'the field'?

בשער נזיר מנלן דאמר קרא (במדבר ו, ה) קדש יהיה גדל פרע שער ראשו גידולו יהיה קדוש

Hence both are inferred. Raba said: The Torah did not order, 'Send it away', for a stumbling-block.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To order it to be freed and at the same time forbidden is a stumbling-block before any person who may capture and eat it, ignorant of its nature.');">¹¹</span> WITH A NAZIRITE'S HAIR, How do we know it?

אי מה קדש תופס את דמיו ויוצא לחולין אף שער נזיר תופס את דמיו ויוצא לחולין מי קרינן קודש קדוש קרינן

Because Scripture saith, He shall be holy, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI, 5.');">¹²</span> [teaching], his growth shall be holy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence forbidden.');">¹³</span> If so, just as a holy obje stamps its purchase price<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If sold; i.e., the money becomes sacred.');">¹⁴</span>

בפטר חמור נימא מתניתין דלא כר' שמעון דתניא פטר חמור אסור בהנאה דברי ר' יהודה ור' שמעון מתיר אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לאחר עריפה ודברי הכל

and itself passes out into hullin, so should the nazirite's hair stamp its purchase price and itself pass out into hullin?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the Mishnah (q.v. 56b) states the reverse.');">¹⁵</span> - Do we then read kodesh? We read kadosh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not a nominal form but a verbal form. I.e., he himself is not holiness, but in a holy state, and hence not as strong as holiness itself, which teaches that his sanctity is nontransferable. - Actually, the word as written (ase) might read kodesh, but according to tradition (masorah) it is read kadosh.');">¹⁶</span>

בשר בחלב מנלן דתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל (שמות כג, יט) לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו ג"פ אחד איסור אכילה ואחד איסור הנאה ואחד איסור בישול

WITH THE FIRSTLING OF AN ASS. Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with R'Simeon? For it was taught: Benefit is forbidden from the firstling of an ass: this is R'Judah's opinion; but R'Simeon permits it! - Said R'Nahman in Rabbah B'Abbuha's name: This means after its neck was broken,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If unredeemed; v. Ex. XIII. 13.');">¹⁷</span>

מתניתין דלא כי האי תנא דתניא ר"ש בן יהודה אומר בשר בחלב אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה שנאמר (דברים יד, כא) כי עם קדוש אתה לה' אלהיך לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו ולהלן הוא אומר (שמות כב, ל) ואנשי קודש תהיון לי מה להלן אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה אף כאן אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה

and so agrees with all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha adds that R. Simeon agrees in that case.');">¹⁸</span> MEAT [SEETHED] IN MILK. How do we know it? - For the School of R'Ishmael taught: Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk [is stated] three times:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIII, 19; XXXIV, 26; Deut. XIV, 21.');">¹⁹</span>

וחולין שנשחטו בעזרה מנא הני מילי אמר ר' יוחנן משום ר' מאיר אמרה תורה שחוט לי בשלי ושלך בשלך מה שלי בשלך אסור אף שלך בשלי אסור

one is a prohibition against eating, one a prohibition of benefit [in general], and one a prohibition of seething.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even without the intention of eating it.');">²⁰</span> Our Mishnah does not agree with the following Tanna. For it was taught: R'Simeon B'Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi (infra 58a) appears to read: R. Simeon b. Yohai. But in Bek. ');">²¹</span>

אי מה שלי בשלך ענוש כרת אף שלך בשלי ענוש כרת אמר קרא (ויקרא יז, ד) ואל פתח אהל מועד לא הביאו להקריב קרבן לה' ונכרת על קרבן ענוש כרת על חולין שנשחטו בעזרה אין ענוש כרת

said: Meat [seethed] in Milk may not be eaten, but benefit is permitted, for it is said: For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. ibid.');">²²</span> whilst elsewhere it is said: And ye shall be holy men unto me: [therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 30: 'casting to the dogs' is benefit.');">²³</span>

איכא למיפרך מה לשלי בשלך שכן ענוש כרת

just as there it may not be eaten, yet benefit is permitted, so here too. AND HULLIN SLAUGHTERED IN THE TEMPLE COURT. How do we know it? - Said R'Johanan on R'Meir's authority: The Torah decreed, slaughter mine [i.e., sacrifices] in mine [i.e., the Temple] and thine [i.

אלא אמר אביי מהכא (ויקרא ג, ב) ושחטו (ויקרא ג, ח) ושחט אותו (ויקרא ג, יג) ושחט אותו תלתא קראי יתירי מה תלמוד לומר

e hullin] in thine [i.e., without the Temple]: just as mine [slaughtered] in thine is forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The consecrated animal is forbidden while yet alive, and becomes permitted through the sprinkling of its blood on the altar, which is absent if it is not killed in the Temple. The prohibition, dating from while it is alive, is naturally of benefit in general.');">²⁴</span> so is thine [slaughtered] in mine forbidden. If so, just as thine in mine is punished by kareth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">²⁵</span>

לפי שנאמר (דברים יב, כא) כי ירחק ממך המקום וזבחת ברחוק מקום אתה זובח ואי אתה זובח במקום קרוב פרט לחולין שלא ישחטו בעזרה

so is mine in thine punished by kareth? - Scripture saith, and he hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting, to offer it as a sacrifice unto the Lord. then he shall be cut off:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 4.');">²⁶</span> for a sacrifice [slaughtered without ] there i punishment of kareth, but not for hullin slaughtered in the Temple Court.

ואין לי אלא תמימים הראוים ליקרב מנין לרבות בעלי מומין מרבה אני את בעלי מומים שכן מין המכשיר מנין לרבות את החיה מרבה אני את החיה שהיא בשחיטה כבהמה מנין לרבות את העופות תלמוד לומר ושחטו ושחט אותו ושחט אותו

[That being so,] it [the analogy] may be refuted: as for mine in thine [being forbidden], that is because it is punished by kareth! - But, said Abaye, [it is deduced] from this: and he shall kill it [at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. III, 2.');">²⁷</span> and he shall kill it [before the tabernacle of the congregation],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 8.');">²⁸</span> and, and he shall kill it [before the tabernacle o the congregation],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 13.');">²⁹</span>

יכול לא ישחוט ואם שחט יהא מותר תלמוד לומר כי ירחק ממך המקום וזבחת ואכלת מה שאתה זובח ברחוק מקום אתה אוכל ואי אתה אוכל מה שאתה זובח במקום קרוב פרט לחולין שנשחטו בעזרה

are three superfluous verses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They all refer to the killing of peace-offerings, and all imply a limitation: it, i.e., the peace-offering, is to be killed by the Tabernacle, but not others.');">³⁰</span> Now, why are they stated? Because it is said: If the place [which the Lord thy God shall choose to put his name there] shall be far from thee.

ואין לי אלא תמימים

then thou shalt kill [o thy herd etc.],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 21.');">³¹</span> [teaching] you may kill far from the place [sc. the Temple], but not in the place, thus excluding hullin, [viz. ,] that it may not be killed in the Temple Court. Again, I know this only of unblemished animals, which are eligible to be sacrificed: whence do I know to include blemished ones? I include blemished animals, since they are of a fit species.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., fit for sacrifice.');">³²</span> Whence do I know to include beasts?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hayyah, wild beast (e.g., the deer) , as opposed to behemah, domestic animal.');">³³</span> I include beasts, since they require shechitah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">³⁴</span> as a [domestic] animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, both may not be done in the Temple Court.');">³⁵</span> How do I know to include birds?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shechitah is not explicitly stated in the Bible in their case.');">³⁶</span> Therefore it is stated, and he shall kill it, and he shall kill it, and he shall kill it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One intimates that beasts shall not be killed in the Temple Court; one, fowls; as for the third, two explanations are offered: (i) that it excludes blemished animals; or (ii) that it teaches that these may not be eaten if killed within the Temple. - Hence, when the Baraitha states: I include blemished animals because . . beasts because . . the meaning is that these might be deduced by analogy, but for the three verses quoted.');">³⁷</span> I might think, One may not kill [hullin in the Temple Court]; yet if he does, it is permitted [to eat it]: therefore it is stated: If the p far from thee, then thou shalt kill. and thou shalt eat: you may eat what you kill far from the place, but what you kill in the place, thus excluding hullin killed in the Temple Court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it may not be eaten.');">³⁸</span> Now, I know this only of unblemished animals,