Kiddushin 57a — the Talmud in English

And the other one:

the tanna’im who do not derive from “the owner of the ox is clear” liability to pay a ransom and compensation for miscarried offspring, and who maintain that the verse was needed to teach that deriving benefit from its hide is prohibited, do so because

the word “et”

is not expounded

anywhere as coming to include something, and

in accordance with this tanna

who refrained from expounding the “et”s in the Torah:

As it was taught: Shimon HaAmmesoni—and some say Neḥemya HaAmmesoni—would expound every

“et”

in the Torah

that comes to include something. However,

when he reached

“You shall fear

the Lord your God,”

he withdrew,

because he was afraid to include anything and equate it with fear of the Omnipresent.

His students said to him: Rabbi! What will become of all the “et”s that you expounded!?

He said to them: Just as I received reward for expounding, so I received reward for withdrawing.

Until Rabbi Akiva came and taught:

“You shall fear

the Lord your God”

to include Torah scholars,

so that the fear of your teacher shall be like the fear of Heaven.

We learned in the Mishna: If one betroths a woman

with an egla arufa

she is not betrothed:

And the Gemara explains:

From where

do we know that an egla arufa is prohibited to derive benefit from?

The scholars of the house of Rabbi Yannai say: Atonement is written with regard to it,

as with sacrificial animals

[as with offerings]. This is as it is stated in the passage concerning the egla arufa [Deuteronomy 21]: “If someone slain is found … and it is not known who struck him … then the city nearest to the slain man shall be, and the elders of that city shall take a heifer of cattle … and the elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to a rough valley that is neither worked nor sown, and they shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley … And all the elders of that city nearest to the slain man shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley. And they shall declare and say … ‘Atone’ for Your people Israel whom You redeemed, O Lord.” Therefore, it is prohibited to derive benefit from, like sacrificial animals.

We learned in the Mishna: If one betroths a woman … with

the birds of a leper …

she is not betrothed:

A leper who has recovered from his leprosy brings two birds to a place of residence outside the camp. The priest dips cedar wood, crimson wool, and hyssop, together with the live bird, into the blood of the other bird, and sprinkles them on the leper. Afterwards, the priest sends the live bird away over the open field, and the leper shaves his first shaving, immerses himself, and is permitted to enter the camp, since a leper is sent outside all three camps. The leper then counts seven days [“days of his counting” or “days of his completion”], and on the seventh day he performs his second shaving. On the eighth day he brings one ram as a guilt-offering and a log of oil, and the priest sprinkles some of the blood of the guilt-offering and some of the oil on the leper’s ear cartilage and thumbs. He also brings a female sheep as a sin-offering and a ram as a burnt-offering. Once he has brought his offerings, the leper is permitted to eat sacrificial food.

And the Gemara explains:

From where

do we know that the birds of a leper are prohibited to derive benefit from?

As the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

Since

it is stated

in the Torah that there is an offering that

enables,

and

an offering that

atones,

both of which are performed

inside,

as follows: The leper’s guilt-offering enables the leper to eat sacrificial food, and it is performed inside, in the Temple courtyard; and the other offerings atone and are performed inside, in the Temple courtyard.

And it is stated

in the Torah that there is an

enabling

and

an

atoning offering

outside,

as follows: The birds of a leper enable the leper to enter the camp, and their procedures are performed outside; and it is stated that an egla arufa atones, as do sacrificial animals, and it is performed outside. Therefore, we derive one of these from the other:

Just as, with regard to an enabling and atoning offering stated with regard to inside, the enabling offering was made like the atoning offering

to prohibit deriving benefit from them—for the leper’s guilt-offering, which is the enabling offering, is a full-fledged offering and is prohibited to derive benefit from, and its law is like that of the other atoning offerings;

so too, with regard to an enabling and atoning offering stated with regard to outside, the enabling offering was made like the atoning offering,

and we have thereby learned to equate the enabling birds of a leper with the atoning egla arufa with regard to the prohibition against deriving benefit.

It was stated:

The birds of a leper: From when are they prohibited

to derive benefit?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From the time of slaughter,

the slaughtered bird becomes prohibited, while the bird sent away is permitted from the outset.

And Reish Lakish said: From the time of taking,

both birds become prohibited, and the bird sent away becomes permitted when it is sent away, as will be explained below.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From the time of slaughter:

because

it is the slaughter that prohibits it,

[the slaughter is what prohibits it].

The Gemara explains their reasons:

Reish Lakish said: From the time of taking:

Because we derive it through a gzera shava:

“taking, taking”

from an egla arufa: Just as an egla arufa

with regard to which it is stated, “The elders of that city shall take a heifer of cattle,” is prohibited to derive benefit from

while alive, so too the birds of a leper,

with regard to which it is stated, “And he shall take for the person being purified two live, pure birds,” are prohibited to derive benefit from

while alive,

which means from the time of taking, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And the Gemara explains:

And the egla arufa itself: From when

does it become prohibited to derive benefit while alive?

Rabbi Yannai said: I heard a limit with regard to it,

as to when it becomes prohibited,

but I forgot; and the scholars thought

[the students reasoned on their own]

to say: Its descent to the rough valley is what prohibits it,

because that is what causes it to receive the designation arufa.

And we challenge: If so, that the egla arufa itself does not become prohibited from the time of taking, this is difficult for Reish Lakish:

Just as an egla arufa, from the time of taking

itself,

does not become prohibited,

but only from the time it descends to the rough valley,

so too, the birds of a leper should not become prohibited from the time of taking

[they should not become prohibited]!?

And we answer:

How can these cases be compared

[is the analogy apt]!?

There,

with regard to an egla arufa,

it has another limit

while alive [there is another point that establishes the prohibition], rather than the time of taking—namely, its descent to the rough valley.

But

here,

with regard to the birds of a leper,

does it have another limit

while alive [is there another point at which it could become prohibited while alive]!? Since there is no other limit, and you must consequently learn from the egla arufa that they are already prohibited while alive, it follows that they became prohibited from the time of taking—for if not now, when?

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish,

who maintains that the birds of a leper become prohibited while alive, from a beraita:

It is written:

“Every pure bird you may eat,”

and therefore the verse says “every” in order

to include

the leper’s bird

that is sent away,

which is even permitted to be eaten.

And it is further written:

“And this is what you shall not eat of them,

the vulture, the bearded vulture, and the osprey”; and therefore the verse says “what” in order

to include

the leper’s

slaughtered bird,

which is prohibited.

And if it enters your mind

that both birds are prohibited while alive, then why is this inclusion necessary!? If it is to teach us that after slaughter it remains prohibited, that is obvious, for if

while alive

it was already

prohibited, after slaughter would it be necessary to say so!?

And we answer: The verse is needed to teach that the slaughtered bird is prohibited when it is slaughtered, even though it had already become prohibited while alive, because

one might have said: Just as is the case

with the leper’s bird,

with regard to sacrificial animals, which, while alive,

they are

prohibited

to eat,

and slaughter comes

[and is applied]

together with

the other sacrificial rites

and renders them fit

to be eaten; so too, this bird should become fit to be eaten after the completion of its mitzva.

Therefore,

the verse teaches us

that even after the completion of its mitzva it remains prohibited.

Ещё

возразил

рабби Йоханан Реш Лакишу, считающему, что обе птицы, предназначенные для очищения прокажённого, становятся запрещёнными с момента приобретения, на основании следующего отрывка из Мишны трактата Негаим [14:5]:

If he slaughtered

one bird

and it was found to be tereifa,

he shall take a pair for the second,

the live one; he need not bring two other birds, but only one in place of the one found to be tereifa.

And the first,

the one found to be tereifa,

is permitted to derive benefit from.

And it enters our mind to interpret this as meaning that he examined its signs and it was discovered to have become tereifa only through its slaughter, for example, its esophagus had been punctured. This is what the expression “and it was found to be tereifa” implies: It had not previously been tereifa because of a perforated membrane of the brain or severed legs.

And therefore we ask:

And if it enters your mind

that it was already

while alive

является

prohibited, then

why is

the first one permitted to derive benefit from?

This is understandable if slaughter is what prohibits it, for at the time of slaughter it was already tereifa; but if taking is what prohibits it, perhaps at the time of taking it was not yet tereifa!?

He said to him,

Reish Lakish to Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Here,

in this Mishna,

with what are we dealing? With a case where it was found to be tereifa in its innards,

and therefore it says “and it was found,” since this is something that cannot be discerned before slaughter,

so no sanctity took effect upon it at all,

for it had been tereifa from the time of taking.

He raised another objection to Reish Lakish, who maintains that the birds become prohibited from the time of taking, from a beraita:

If he slaughtered

one bird

одну птицу

without hyssop

[there was no hyssop there],

and without cedar wood and without crimson wool:

Rabbi Yaakov says: Since

it had already

been designated

the bird

for its mitzva,

it is therefore

prohibited

to derive benefit from.

Rabbi Shimon says: Since it was slaughtered not in accordance with its mitzva, it is permitted,

and he explains it as he proceeds.

They disagree only up to this point, however:

for

one master—

Rabbi Yaakov—

held: slaughter that is unfit

and fit for its mitzva, nevertheless

is called slaughter

to prohibit it.

And the other master—

Rabbi Shimon—

held: slaughter that is unfit

for its mitzva

is not called slaughter

to prohibit it.

But nevertheless, learn from this

that everyone—

both the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon—

at least

agree that

while alive it is not rendered forbidden,

for if it is rendered forbidden while alive, through what did its prohibition lapse? And this is difficult for Reish Lakish, who holds: They became forbidden from the time of acquisition!?

And we answer:

It is a matter of tannaitic dispute,

for they disagreed about this matter, since there is one who disagrees with these tannaim and holds that they become forbidden while alive, and Reish Lakish holds like them.

For the tannaitic school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: It is stated “

that renders fit”

[the guilt-offering of the leper]

and “

that effects atonement”

[all the offerings]

inside

in the courtyard,

and it is stated: “that renders fit”

[the birds of the leper] “

and that effects atonement”

[the heifer whose neck is broken]

outside—

Just as with the one that renders fit and effects atonement mentioned concerning inside, he made the one that renders fit like the one that effects atonement

to prohibit the guilt-offering from benefit, just as those that effect atonement became forbidden.

So too, with the one that renders fit and effects atonement mentioned concerning outside, he made the one that renders fit like the one that effects atonement,

to prohibit the birds of the leper, like the heifer whose neck is broken.

And Reish Lakish holds that it is implied by the words of the tannaitic school of Rabbi Ishmael that just as the heifer whose neck is broken becomes forbidden while alive, so the birds of the leper become forbidden while alive.

The essential text: “

Every pure bird you may eat,”

to include

the

dispatched

bird of the leper, which is permitted for eating; “

And this is what you shall not eat from them,”

to include

the

slaughtered

bird of the leper, which is forbidden:

And we challenge: From where do you know to learn that the inclusive expression that permits comes to permit the dispatched bird, and that the inclusive expression that prohibits comes to prohibit the slaughtered bird,

and

behold,

I could reverse it

and say: The inclusive expression that permits comes to permit the slaughtered bird, and the inclusive expression that prohibits comes to prohibit the dispatched bird!?

And we explain:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: We have not found living creatures that are forbidden

with an eternal prohibition, and necessarily the verse came to permit the dispatched bird, for if it were forbidden, it would have no means of becoming permitted.

Rab Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak challenged

this foundation that Rabbi Yoḥanan stated:

And

is it that

no

living creatures have been found that are forbidden with an eternal prohibition!?