פירוש על קידושין 115:21

Here the baraita adds one last point—one may derive benefit from animals not properly slaughtered. But one may not derive benefit from hullin slaughtered in the Temple.

R. Shimon holds that if a man betroths a woman with hullin killed in the Temple Courtyard she is betrothed. This implies that he holds that this is not a biblical prohibition.

In this baraita, R. Shimon mandates the utter destruction of hullin killed in the Temple Courtyard. This implies that the prohibition is biblical.

R. Joseph and R. Shmuel do not know how to answer Mar Judah’s question, so they bring it to Rabbah. After denigrating Mar Judah for his contentious personality, Rabbah solves the problem. R. Shimon holds that hullin animals killed in the Temple are biblically prohibited. But the baraita was referring to a case where the animal was found to be a terefa, an animal with a physical flaw that would have caused it to die. Such an animal could not be a sacrifice. Since its slaughter would in any case not have permitted it to be eaten, R. Shimon does not consider this to be under the prohibition of hullin killed in the Temple.

R. Joseph and R. Shmuel do not know how to answer Mar Judah’s question, so they bring it to Rabbah. After denigrating Mar Judah for his contentious personality, Rabbah solves the problem. R. Shimon holds that hullin animals killed in the Temple are biblically prohibited. But the baraita was referring to a case where the animal was found to be a terefa, an animal with a physical flaw that would have caused it to die. Such an animal could not be a sacrifice. Since its slaughter would in any case not have permitted it to be eaten, R. Shimon does not consider this to be under the prohibition of hullin killed in the Temple.

R. Joseph and R. Shmuel do not know how to answer Mar Judah’s question, so they bring it to Rabbah. After denigrating Mar Judah for his contentious personality, Rabbah solves the problem. R. Shimon holds that hullin animals killed in the Temple are biblically prohibited. But the baraita was referring to a case where the animal was found to be a terefa, an animal with a physical flaw that would have caused it to die. Such an animal could not be a sacrifice. Since its slaughter would in any case not have permitted it to be eaten, R. Shimon does not consider this to be under the prohibition of hullin killed in the Temple.

The rabbis read the Torah as ruling that idols or things used in idolatrous worship are prohibited and if they are used to produce something else, then whatever is used for the purchase is prohibited as well. But since the Torah specifies this about idolatrous objects, by implication other prohibited items are different. In other cases, if the item is sold, the proceeds can be used.

The Talmud asks why idolatry shouldn’t be a paradigm for everything else. The answer is that there are two objects that have the same rule (the proceeds of their sale are prohibited). Idolatry and seventh year produce. And in any such case, neither serves as a paradigm for other things.

If seventh year produce is sold, the money used to buy it becomes holy but the seventh year produce is not desacralized.

If seventh year produce is sold, the money used to buy it becomes holy but the seventh year produce is not desacralized.

This baraita illustrates how the seventh year produce retains its status and yet passes on its status to whatever is purchased through it.

Other rabbis hold that one can learn from two verses that teach the same thing. So how do they know that only idolatry and seventh year produce cause the money used to purchase them to become prohibited? They learn it from the word “it” that appears in both verses. “It” has this rule, but nothing else....

Terumot: Terumah can only be eaten by a priest. A priest can use terumah for betrothal and then the woman may sell it. However, even an Israelite can potentially own terumah. For instance, if someone’s maternal grandfather is a priest, he is not a priest because the priesthood is not inherited through his mother. In such a case he will inherit from his grandfather, if his mother inherits from her father and then dies. The non-priest cannot eat the terumah which he inherits, but he can sell it. He could also use it for betrothal and then the woman can sell it. He would have to tell her that it is terumah, because terumah is less valuable than regular food.
Tithes: These are given to the Levite, who may use them for betrothal. An Israelite can use them for betrothal in the same way described above.
Priestly gifts: This refers to parts of non-sacred animals given to priests (see Deuteronomy 18:3). The priest can use them as betrothal money and if they come into the hands of an Israelite, he too can use them.
The water and ash of purification: To purify someone who came into contact with a dead body, they would burn the red heifer and put its ash into water.
I should note that I have explained that an Israelite cannot betroth with terumot or tithes that he separates from his own produce. Such gifts must be given for free directly to a priest or Levite. However, it is possible to explain that the mishnah is referring to the tithes or terumot that an Israelite himself separates from his produce. The Israelite has the benefit of being able to give such gifts to whichever priest or Levite he so desires. This benefit is worth money—for it will make the priest or Levite look favorably upon him. It is with this benefit that he is betrothing the woman. She now has the benefit of giving the terumot or tithes to anyone she wishes. While this may be a small benefit, remember, it only takes a perutah. However, as we shall see, the Talmud does not like this interpretation.

Ulla says that the ability to give terumah or tithes to whomever one wants is not considered of monetary value. If a man gives a woman terumah so that she can decide what priest to give it to her he has not given her “money” such that she would be betrothed.

The mishnah seems to be a direct refutation of Ulla. One can betroth with terumah and tithes. The benefit of discretion does seem to count as money.

The mishnah does not refer to an Israelite who gives terumah that he had to separate to a woman. Rather, it refers to an Israelite who inherited tevel, untithed produce, from his mother’s father. There is terumah inside this tevel, and this tanna considers the terumah to be a separate entity. The Israelite owns the terumah and can do with it what he wants, although he may not eat it. The woman will now be able to sell it. That is why he can perform kiddushin with it.

This is basically the same material we just saw placed in a bet midrash dialogue.