Kiddushin 57b (נז:) — the Talmud in English

Even yours in mine

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

is forbidden

to derive benefit from.

And we ask: Since they are derived from one another, let us say:

Just as my own in yours is punishable by karet

for slaughtering it,

so too, yours in mine

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

punishable by karet

for slaughtering it!? And we answer:

The verse says

with regard to “animals 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 Tabernacle of the Lord; blood shall be accounted to that man, he has shed blood]

and he shall be cut off,

and therefore the Torah added the word “offering,” rather than saying “to offer it to the Lord,” in order to teach:

For an offering

he

is punishable by karet

when he slaughters it outside, but

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

such

punishment of karet.

And we ask: If so,

there is room to refute

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

What is there about “

my own in yours”

that it is punishable by karet

for slaughtering it? Can you say the same of “yours in mine,” for which there is no punishment of karet for slaughtering it? And since there is no punishment of karet, perhaps it should not be forbidden to benefit from it!?

Rather,

because of this difficulty,

Abaye said that

from here

it can be learned that non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard are forbidden to benefit from, as it is taught in a beraita:

It is stated [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. This implies: You shall slaughter that animal at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, but you shall not slaughter non-sacred animals at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting—

And it is stated further [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. This verse, too, implies: You shall slaughter that animal at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, but you shall not slaughter non-sacred animals at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting—

And it is stated further [Leviticus 3:12]: “And if his offering is a goat [for peace offerings] …”

“And he shall slaughter it”

before the Tent of Meeting. This verse, too, implies: You shall slaughter that animal at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, but you shall not slaughter non-sacred animals at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting—

And

three extra verses

[three superfluous passages, for in all of them it would have sufficed to say “and he shall slaughter”] teach that one may not slaughter non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard.

What is the purpose of the verse

—that is, why are three verses necessary to teach this?

And the beraita explains:

Since it is stated

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

When the place is distant from you

[the place that the Lord your God will choose to place His Name there],

then you shall slaughter

from your herd and from your flock that the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you, and you shall eat within your gates according to all the desire of your soul.” In this passage, the Holy One, blessed be He, permitted them to eat ordinary meat—that is, from animals fit to be offered as sacrifices—which had been forbidden to them in the wilderness.

And we learn:

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 may not be slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.

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

For

I would have only

learned from this verse

that

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

unblemished and fit to be offered as sacrifices,

for the passage is speaking of these animals, since only concerning these were they commanded in the wilderness to bring them and offer them, and these were permitted to them in this passage—

From where is it derived to include

also non-sacred animals that are

blemished,

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

And even if I were to force the matter and say that

I include

animals that are

blemished,

so that they are forbidden to be slaughtered in the Temple courtyard,

since

it

is of a species fit

to be offered as an offering, and thus 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 to force the matter and say that

I include the wild animal, which is slaughtered like a domesticated animal,

and resembles it in this respect—

I would still say:

From where is it derived to include

also

the birds,

whose mode of slaughter is not explicitly stated in the Torah, so that they, too, may not be slaughtered in the Temple courtyard?

Therefore,

the verse states: “

And he shall slaughter it,” “

and he shall slaughter it,” “

and he shall slaughter it”—three exclusions. And again, it is insufficient to interpret the exclusion as referring only to birds, which certainly require a special exclusion; it also refers to blemished animals and wild animals, for once exclusions were written, it is reasonable that the verse came to teach all three of these, rather than their inclusion being derived by logical inference, as we might have forced the matter to say.

The beraita continues to explain:

One might have thought that one may not slaughter

non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard,

but

if

one transgressed and

slaughtered

non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard,

they would be permitted

for consumption?

Therefore,

the verse states: “

When the place is distant 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.