Kiddushin 57b — the Talmud in English

And

behold

an animal

set aside

которое было выделено для жертвоприношения идолу],

and worshipped

[an animal to which they performed idolatry],

for they are living creatures, and are forbidden

for the Most High with an everlasting prohibition—!?

And we answer:

When they are forbidden to the Most High,

but

for an ordinary person it is permitted,

whereas we said only in a case of a prohibition for an ordinary person, as with the sent-away bird.

Again,

Rabbi Jeremiah raised an objection

to the foundation of Rabbi Yohanan:

Behold,

an ox

that mated

with a woman,

and with which a man mated

—by a man—

through witnesses,

and their judgment was concluded for stoning,

for they are living creatures, and are forbidden

to an ordinary person in eating and benefit, and they have no permission ever—!?

Rather, Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: We have not found most living creatures that are forbidden

with an everlasting prohibition.

The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught

a source for the permission of the sent-away bird:

Because

the verse says

concerning the sent-away bird: “

And he shall send away the living bird over the face of the field,”

and it comes to teach:

Just as a field is permitted, so too this

sent-away bird

is also permitted.

And we ask: Is it so that

this “

field”

for this purpose—

to permit the sent-away bird—

is what it came for?

But

that

verse of “field”

is needed [

it is needed to teach ]

for that which was taught:

This that the Torah said, “And he shall send away the living bird over the face of the

field,”

comes to teach:

That he should not stand

by way of example

in Jaffa,

whose wall borders the sea,

and throw it into the sea,

because we require that he throw it into a “field”; and he should not stand, by way of example,

in Gabbatha,

whose wall borders the wilderness,

and throw it into the wilderness,

which is not a “field”;

and he should not stand outside the city and throw it inside the city.

Rather, whenever he stands in the city,

he should stand in the city

and throw it outside the wall

of the city.

If so, how shall we learn from “field” that the sent-away bird is permitted? After all, this verse is needed to teach us the procedure of the sending away—!?

And we explain:

But the other one,

that is, the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael, who learned from “field” that the sent-away bird is permitted for benefit, will say to you:

If so—

if it comes only to teach the procedure of the sending away—

let the verse write: “And he shall send it over the face of

a

field”;

why “

the field”!?

Learn from it two laws,

both the procedure of the sending away and that the sent-away bird is permitted for benefit!

Rava said:

It is reasonable that the sent-away bird should be permitted: Surely

the Torah did not say, ‘Send away’

the bird and let it be

a stumbling block

for the one who finds it, for the finder does not know that it is forbidden for benefit, since he does not recognize it, and he will stumble through benefiting from it.

We learned in the Mishna: One who betroths

with the hair of a nazirite ...

she is not betrothed:

And we explain:

From where do we know

that the hair of a nazirite is forbidden for benefit?

For the verse says

concerning a nazirite: “

Holy [

the dalet with a holam and lacking a vav ]

shall the growth of the hair of his head be,”

and for this reason the Torah wrote it with a missing vav, so that it can be read “holy,” and to teach us:

Its growth shall be holy.

And we ask: If so, let us say:

Just as holiness takes hold of its monetary value and goes out to the ordinary, so too the hair of a nazirite takes hold of its monetary value and goes out to the ordinary!?

Do we read “

holy”

in a manner that implies a designation of holiness, so that it should be said that both it and its monetary value are holy!? After all, in the end

holy

is what we read,

and therefore the Torah called it “holy” in order to teach: It itself shall be holy, but not its monetary value.

We learned in the Mishna: One who betroths

with the firstborn of a donkey ...

she is not betrothed:

The Gemara asks: Is it to say

let us say

that

our Mishna—

which prohibits the firstborn of a donkey for benefit—

is not according to Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught:

The firstborn of a donkey is forbidden for benefit, the words of Rabbi Judah; and Rabbi Shimon permits it.

It follows that Rabbi Shimon permits the firstborn of a donkey for benefit, whereas our Mishna holds that the firstborn of a donkey is forbidden for benefit, and therefore she is not betrothed with it.

He said—

he rejected this—

Rav Nahman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha:

Our Mishna is speaking of one who betroths with the firstborn of a donkey

after decapitation, and according to everyone,

for Rabbi Shimon too permitted it only before decapitation.

We learned in the Mishna: One who betroths ... with

meat with milk ...

she is not betrothed:

And we explain:

From where do we know

that meat cooked with milk is forbidden for benefit?

For the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: “

You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk,”

which the Torah stated

three times: one

comes to teach about

the prohibition of eating

meat cooked with milk.

And one

comes to teach about

the prohibition of benefit

from it.

And one

comes to teach

the prohibition of

the

cooking

itself.

And we explain:

Our Mishna—

which prohibits meat with milk for benefit—

is not according to this tanna, as it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says

[in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai]:

Meat with milk is forbidden in eating, and permitted for benefit, as it is stated: “

For you are a holy people to Hashem

your God; you shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk,”

and elsewhere it says: “

And you shall be holy people to Me

and flesh torn in the field you shall not eat; you shall throw it to the dog,”

just as there: it is forbidden in eating and permitted for benefit,

for the Torah said: “You shall throw it to the dog,”

so too here,

with meat and milk—

it is forbidden in eating and permitted for benefit.

We learned in the Mishna: One who betroths

with non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard ...

she is not betrothed:

And we explain:

From where are these words

that non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard are forbidden for benefit?

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir:

The Torah said: Slaughter

my

[sacred animal] with mine

[slaughter My sacrifice in My courtyard]—

And

the Torah said: Slaughter

your own with your own

[your non-sacred animal in your courtyard]—

And they learn one from the other:

Just as ‘mine with yours’,

sacrificial animals slaughtered outside,

is forbidden

for benefit, for who could permit the prohibition that applied to them while alive, since their blood is not sprinkled—

Even yours in mine

that is, non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard,

is forbidden

to derive benefit from.

And we challenge: Since they are learned from one another, let it be said:

Just as mine in yours is liable to karet

for its slaughter,

so, yours in mine

[non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard] shall be

liable to karet

for its slaughter!? And we answer: When

the verse says

concerning “those slaughtered outside”: “

and he did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to offer it as an offering to the Lord

[before the Sanctuary of the Lord; blood shall be reckoned to that man, he has shed blood]

and he shall be cut off,”

and therefore the Torah added and said “an offering,” and did not say “to offer it to the Lord,” in order to teach:

for an offering

he

is liable to karet

when he slaughtered it outside, but

for non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard there is no

he

liability to karet.

And we challenge: If so, behold,

there is room to refute

the very derivation from “those slaughtered outside” concerning non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, that they are forbidden to derive benefit from, because:

What is there concerning “

mine in yours”

that it is liable to karet

for the slaughter; can you say this concerning “yours in mine,” which is not liable to karet for the slaughter? And since it is not liable to karet, it should likewise not be forbidden to derive benefit from it!?

Rather,

because of this challenge

Abaye said,

that

from here

it is to be learned concerning non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard that they are forbidden to derive benefit from; for it was taught:

It is said [Leviticus 3:1]: “And if his offering is a sacrifice of peace-offerings ...

and he shall slaughter it

at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” and it implies: that one you shall slaughter at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, but non-sacred animals you shall not slaughter at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting—

And it is further said [Leviticus 3:6]: “And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offerings is from the flock ...

and he shall slaughter it

before the Tent of Meeting,” and this verse too implies: that one you shall slaughter at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, but non-sacred animals you shall not slaughter at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting—

And it is further said [Leviticus 3:12]: “And if his offering is a goat [for peace-offerings] ...

and he shall slaughter it

before the Tent of Meeting,” and this verse too implies: that one you shall slaughter at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, but non-sacred animals you shall not slaughter at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting—

And

three extra verses

[three superfluous written passages, for in all of them it could have said “and he shall slaughter”] teach: that one should not slaughter non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard.

What is the meaning of the verse,

that is, why are three verses needed to teach this?

And the beraita explains:

Since it was said

[Deuteronomy 12:20]: “When the Lord your God expands your boundary, as He has spoken to you, and you say, ‘I shall eat meat,’ because your soul desires to eat meat, wherever your soul desires you may eat meat.

When the place is far from you

[which the Lord your God shall choose to place His Name there],

then you shall slaughter

from your cattle and from your flock that the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you, and you shall eat within your gates, wherever your soul desires,” and in this section the Holy One, blessed is He, permitted them to eat meat of desire—from animals fit for an offering—which had been forbidden to them in the wilderness.

And we learned:

In a distant place

[outside the Temple courtyard]

you may slaughter

non-sacred animals,

but you may not slaughter

non-sacred animals

in a nearby place

[in the Temple courtyard],

excluding non-sacred animals, which shall not be slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.

And the beraita explains that this verse is necessarily insufficient, and an additional exclusion is needed, because:

Behold,

I have only

learned from this verse

but

that it is forbidden to slaughter in the Temple courtyard only non-sacred animals

that are unblemished and fit to be offered,

for this section speaks of these, since only concerning these were they commanded in the wilderness to bring them and offer them, and these were permitted to them in this section—

From where is it derived to include

also non-sacred animals

that have blemishes,

which are unfit to be offered, so that they too may not be slaughtered in the Temple courtyard—

And even if I were pressed and said that

I include

the animals

that have blemishes

as those forbidden to be slaughtered in the Temple courtyard,

since

it

is of a species fit

to be offered as an offering, and resembles what was forbidden to them in the wilderness.

I would still say:

From where is it derived to include

also

the wild animal,

which is not of a species fit for an offering, so that it is forbidden to slaughter it in the Temple courtyard—and even if I were pressed and said that

I include the wild animal, which is subject to slaughter like a domestic animal,

and resembles it in this particular—

I would still say:

From where is it derived to include

also

the birds,

whose law of slaughter is not explicit in the Torah, so that they too may not be slaughtered in the Temple courtyard?

And therefore

the verse says: “

And he shall slaughter it,” “

and he shall slaughter it,” “

and he shall slaughter it”—

three exclusions; and again, it is not sufficient to interpret the exclusion as referring to birds, which certainly require a special exclusion, but it also refers to animals with blemishes and to a wild animal, because once exclusions were written, it is reasonable that the verse came to teach about all three of these, and they are not learned by reasoning, as we could have been pressed to say.

The beraita continues to explain:

One might have said: He should not slaughter

non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard,

and

however,

if

he transgressed and

slaughtered

non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard,

shall it be permitted

for eating?

Therefore

the verse says: “

When the place is far from you ...

then you shall slaughter ...

and you shall eat

within your gates”:

What you slaughter in a distant place you may eat, but you may not eat what you slaughter in a nearby place, excluding non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.