Kiddushin 115

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 ת"ל ושחטו ושחט אותו ושחט אותו

which are eligible to be sacrificed; how do I know to include blemished ones? I include blemished animals, seeing that they are of a fit species. And how do I know to include beasts?

יכול לא ישחוט ואם שחט ישליכנו לפני כלבים תלמוד לומר (שמות כב, ל) לכלב תשליכון אותו אותו אתה משליך לכלב ואי אתה משליך חולין שנשחטו בעזרה

I include beasts, because they require shechitah, as domestic animals. How do I know to include birds? Therefore it is stated, and he shall kill it, and he shall kill it, and he shall kill it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., since the three verses shew that these may not be killed in the Temple Court, just as an unblemished animal, they also shew that they are like it too in that they may not be eaten.');">¹</span>

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 ר' שמעון אומר מקודשת וחכ"א אינה מקודשת אלמא חולין שנשחטו בעזרה לר' שמעון לאו דאורייתא

I might think, One may not kill [hullin in the Temple]; yet if he does, he may cast it to dogs: therefore it is taught, [ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the ye shall cast it to the dogs:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 30.');">²</span> 'it' ye may cast to the dogs, but not hullin killed in the Temple Court. Mar Judah met R'Joseph and R'Samuel, son of Rabbah B'Bar Hanah, standing by the door of Rabbah's academy.

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>

אתו לקמיה דרבה אמר להו פלגא אוקמינכי הב"ע כגון שנשחטה ונמצאת טריפה ור"ש לטעמיה

They were silent. When they came before Rabbah [and put the difficulty to him], he exclaimed: That controversialist [Mar Judah] has prompted you! The circumstances here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the case of betrothal.');">⁵</span> are that it was killed and found to be trefa.

דתניא השוחט את הטריפה וכן השוחט ונמצאת טריפה זה וזה חולין בעזרה ר"ש מתיר בהנאה וחכמים אוסרים

R'Simeon following his general view. For it was taught: If one kills<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by ritual shechitah.');">⁶</span> a trefa,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Perceptible as such even before it is killed.');">⁷</span>

מכרן וקידש בדמיהן מקודשת מנלן מדגלי רחמנא בעבודת כוכבים (דברים ז, כו) והיית חרם כמוהו כל שאתה מהייה הימנה הרי הוא כמוהו מכלל דכל איסורים שבתורה שרו

or if one kills [an animal] and it is discovered to be a trefa, both being hullin in the Temple Court,--R'Simeon holds that benefit is permitted; but the Sages forbid it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In R. Simeon's view, if the slaughter does not qualify it for food, because it is otherwise forbidden, it is not slaughter at all, and no interdict which would normally result from the killing takes effect. Therefore one may benefit therefrom and it is valid for betrothal.');">⁸</span> IF HE SELLS THEM AND BETROTHS HER WITH THE PROCEEDS, SHE IS BETROTHED. How do we know it? - Since the Divine Law revealed in reference to idolatry, [and thou shalt not bring an abomination into thine house,] lest thou be a cursed thing like it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. VII, 26.');">⁹</span>

ונילף מינה משום דהוה עבודת כוכבים ושביעית שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין

[which means,] whatever you produce out of it is as itself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if an idol is sold, the money too is accursed, viz., forbidden.');">¹⁰</span> it follows that all other objects forbidden in the Torah are permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the money received for them if sold.');">¹¹</span> Let us [rather] learn from it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That others are similar.');">¹²</span>

עבודת כוכבים הא דאמרן שביעית מאי היא (ויקרא כה, יב) יובל היא קודש תהיה לכם מה קודש תופס את דמיו אף שביעית תופסת דמיה

- Because idolatry and seventh year [produce] are two verses that come with the same teaching, and such do not illumine [others].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 169, n. 7.');">¹³</span> Idolatry, as stated. What about seventh year [produce]? - It is jubilee; it shall be holy unto you:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 12.');">¹⁴</span>

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

just as a holy object stamps its purchase price [with its own sacred character]. so does seventh year [produce] likewise. If so, just as a holy object stamps its purchase price but itself becomes hullin, so does the seventh year [produce] stamp its purchase price and itself becomes hullin?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that it is no longer subject to seventh year prohibitions.');">¹⁵</span>

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

Therefore it is stated: 'it shall be,' [meaning], it shall remain [be] in its present form. How so? If one buys meat with seventh year produce, both must be removed [from the house] in the seventh year;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., private ownership must be renounced.');">¹⁶</span>

הניחא למאן דאמר אין מלמדין אלא למאן דאמר מלמדין מאי איכא למימר מיעוטי כתיבי כתיב הכא (דברים ז, כו) כי חרם הוא וכתיב התם (ויקרא כה, יא) יובל היא היא אין מידי אחרינא לא

[if he purchases] fish with the meat, the meat passes out [from seventh year provisions] and the fish enters [i.e., takes its place]; [ he barters] the fish for wine, the fish passes out and the wine enters; oil for the wine, the wine passes out an the oil enters. Thus, how is it? The last on each occasion is stamped with [the nature of] the seventh year, while the [original] produce itself remains forbidden.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המקדש בתרומות ובמעשרות ובמתנות ובמי חטאת ובאפר חטאת הרי זו מקודשת ואפילו ישראל

Now, that is well on the view that [two verses with the same teaching] do not illumine [others]; but on the view that they do, what can be said? - Limitations are written. Here it is written: 'lest thou be a cursed thing like it';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text as emended by Maharsha.');">¹⁷</span> and there it is written, it is jubilee: [thu only it, but nothing else.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the peculiar laws of idolatry and seventh year produce as stated here do not apply to anything else.');">¹⁸</span>

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

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE BETROTHS [A WOMAN] WITH TERUMOTH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Plur. of terumah, v. Glos.');">¹⁹</span> TITHES, [PRIESTLY] GIFTS, THE WATER OF PURIFICATION AND THE ASHES OF PURIFICATION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. XIX.');">²⁰</span> SHE IS BETROTHED, EVEN IF AN ISRAELITE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if he who betroths is an Israelite; that is the assumed meaning. Now, an Israelite has no direct benefit in these, save the indirect one of being able to dispose of them to whatever priest or Levite he desires; and she too has only the same benefit. Since the Mishnah rules that the betrothal is valid, it follows that this benefit of disposal is considered to possess a monetary value.');">²¹</span>

א"ל הכא בישראל שנפלו לו טבלים מבית אבי אמו כהן וקא סבר מתנות שלא הורמו כמי שהורמו דמיין

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>'Ulla said: The benefit of disposal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. preceding note; lit., 'the benefit of pleasure' - the pleasure of disposing to whomever one desires.');">²²</span> does not rank as money. R'Abba [thereupon] raised an objection against 'Ulla: IF ONE BETROTHS [A WOMAN] WITH TERUMOTH, TITHES, [PRIESTLY] GIFTS, THE WATER OF PURIFICATION AND THE ASHES OF PURIFICATION, SHE IS BETROTHED, EVEN IF AN ISRAELITE!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves the reverse; v. n. 5.');">²³</span>

בעא מיניה ר' 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 א"ל ולאו אוקימנא בישראל שנפלו לו טבלים מבית אבי אמו כהן

- He answered: This refers to an Israelite who inherited tebalim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pl. of tebel, q.v. Glos.; lit., 'tebalim fell to him'.');">²⁴</span> from his maternal grandfather<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from the house of the father of his mother'.');">²⁵</span> [who was] a priest. Now he [Tanna of the Mishnah] holds that unseparated gifts are as though already separated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even a priest had to separate the priestly gifts. but retained them for himself. Hence the priestly dues contained in these tebalim belong to the heir, who may sell, since he cannot eat them himself, and so they rank as money. But ordinary gifts which must be given away do not rank as money.');">²⁶</span> R'Hiyya B'Abin asked R'Huna: Does the benefit of disposal rank as money or not? - Said he to him: We have learned it: IF ONE BETROTHS [A WOMAN] WITH TERUMOTH, TITHES, [PRIESTLY] GIFTS, THE WATER OF PURIFICATION AND THE ASHES OF PURIFICATION, SHE IS BETROTHED, EVEN IF AN ISRAELITE. But did we not interpret it as referring to an Israelite who inherited tebalim from his maternal grandfather [who was] a priest, he questioned?