Kiddushin 58a — the Talmud in English

And I have only

non-sacred animals

that are unblemished ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

fit to be offered,

which are forbidden for eating when they are slaughtered in the Temple courtyard,

from where to include

also non-sacred animals

that have blemishes,

which are forbidden for eating when they are slaughtered in the Temple courtyard—

And even if I were pressed and said that

I include animals with blemishes

which are forbidden for eating when they are slaughtered in the Temple courtyard,

since it is a type that is fit

for offering—

I would still say:

and from where to include the wild animal

which is forbidden for eating when it is slaughtered in the Temple courtyard—

And even if I were pressed and said that

I include the wild animal

which is forbidden for eating when it is slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, because

its slaughter is like that of a domesticated animal—

I would still say:

from where to include the birds

which are forbidden for eating when they are slaughtered in the Temple courtyard? And therefore

the verse says: “

And he shall slaughter,” “

and he shall slaughter it,” “

and he shall slaughter it”;

that is to say: since these were included as forbidden for slaughter like the unblemished animals, they were also included as forbidden for eating like the unblemished animals.

One might be able not to slaughter

non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard,

and if

he transgressed and

slaughtered it, he should cast it before dogs,

that is to say: it should be permitted for benefit?

The verse says: “

And flesh in the field that is torn [this is flesh that went outside the boundary of its permission, such as a fetus that extended its hand from its mother’s womb, for its mother’s womb is the fetus’s boundary with regard to slaughter, since its mother’s slaughter permits it]

you shall cast to the dog.”

And therefore the Torah added and said: “it,” in order to teach:

it—

the flesh that became forbidden because it went outside its boundary—

you cast to the dog, but you do not cast

to the dog that which became forbidden because it entered within the boundary, namely

non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard,

and to teach that they are forbidden even for benefit.

The Gemara relates that

he found them

[he encountered them],

Mar

Yehuda, Rav Yosef, and Rav Shmuel son of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, who were standing at the entrance of Rabba’s house of study

[when they were standing at the entrance to Rabba’s academy],

he said to them

Mar Yehuda:

It was taught in a beraita: One who betroths with the firstborn of a donkey

before its breaking of the neck,

with meat with milk, or with non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard:

Rabbi Shimon says: She is betrothed,

for in his view meat with milk is permitted for benefit, as explained above in his name; and likewise Rabbi Shimon said above that the firstborn of a donkey is permitted for benefit before its breaking of the neck; and the reason concerning non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is explained in our discussion.

And the Sages say: She is not betrothed,

for in their view all of these are prohibitions of benefit.

And Mar Yehuda challenged them:

Evidently,

for it is proven from this beraita that

non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, according to Rabbi Shimon, are not

forbidden by

Torah law

for benefit.

And he raises a contradiction

from that which was taught:

Rabbi Shimon says: Non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard shall be burned, and likewise a wild animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.

And now the difficulty is: It is understandable if they are forbidden for benefit by Torah law; one can say that the Sages decreed that they be burned, and burial is not sufficient for them [as with other prohibitions of benefit concerning which the Torah did not command that they be burned], because perhaps people will say: “They are sacrificial animals that became disqualified,” and they will say that disqualified consecrated animals suffice with burial, whereas this is not so; rather, their law is burning by Torah law. And once the Sages required burning for a domesticated animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, they did not distinguish, but said : Everything forbidden because of non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard—even a wild animal, concerning which this decree does not apply—shall likewise be burned.

Anything forbidden because it is a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, even an undomesticated animal to which this decree does not apply, must also be burned.

But if the entire prohibition of benefit of non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is rabbinic, then they should not have been stringent and required burning except for a domesticated animal, because of the decree that people might say that disqualified consecrated animals are buried; but concerning a wild animal, to which this decree does not apply, they should not have been stringent.

They fell silent

Rav Yosef and Rav Shmuel, because they did not know how to answer him!

They came before Rabba

[Rav Yosef and Rav Shmuel came before Rabba], and related to him what Mar Yehuda had challenged them:

Rabba said to them

Rav Yosef and Rav Shmuel:

A contentious person

has silenced you

[a quarrelsome man, accustomed to disagreeing with his fellows, has silenced you]! And his challenge is not a challenge, because:

Actually, Rabbi Shimon holds that non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard are prohibited by Torah law, and therefore the wild animal too shall be burned. But

here—

in the beraita in which Rabbi Shimon said that if one betroths with non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard she is betrothed—

with what are we dealing? For example, one that was slaughtered

in the Temple courtyard

and was found to be a tereifa, and Rabbi Shimon follows his own reasoning,

for he permits non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard when they are found to be a tereifa; and

as it was taught:

One who slaughters a tereifa

that is recognizable,

and likewise one who slaughters and it is found to be a tereifa

through examination after the slaughter,

both this and that

are

non-sacred animals

that were slaughtered

in the Temple courtyard: Rabbi Shimon permits them for benefit,

because he holds everywhere

And the Sages prohibit

according to their position everywhere, that even “a slaughter that is not fit” is called slaughter.

We learned in the Mishna:

He sold them and betrothed with their proceeds, she is betrothed:

And we explain:

From where do we know

that these prohibitions of benefit do not cause their proceeds to be subject to the prohibition of benefit?

From what the Merciful One revealed,

since the Torah revealed

concerning idolatry: “

You shall burn the graven images of their gods in fire ... and you shall not bring an abomination into your house

and you shall be a banned thing like it,” and to teach:

everything that you make into being from it

[from the abomination, which is idolatry], such as when he sells it and receives its proceeds,

it is like it

it is like it

to become forbidden for benefit. We have therefore learned:

it follows that all the prohibitions in the Torah

that were forbidden for benefit

are permitted

as to their proceeds.

And we challenge:

And

on the contrary,

let us derive from it

[let us derive from idolatry] concerning all prohibitions of benefit in the Torah, that they cause their proceeds to be subject to the prohibition!?

And we answer:

Because idolatry and the Sabbatical year are two verses that come as one

in teaching that they cause their proceeds to be subject to their prohibitions,

and every two verses that come as one do not teach

to another matter.

The Gemara asks: The verse concerning

idolatry

is

that which we said

[that which we said]: “And you shall be a banned thing like it.”

And what is the second verse concerning

the Sabbatical year?

As it was taught:

It is written: “

It is the Jubilee; holy it shall be for you,”

the verse equated the Jubilee with something holy, in order to teach:

Just as something holy causes its proceeds to be subject to its sanctity, so too the Sabbatical year causes its proceeds to be subject to its sanctity,

that is to say: the verse comes to teach that the Jubilee causes its proceeds to be subject to its sanctity, and the Sabbatical year is derived from it because it too is forbidden in plowing and sowing, and it was juxtaposed with the Jubilee.

Lest you say:

If, just as something holy causes its proceeds to be subject to its sanctity and

itself

leaves to the non-sacred, so too the Sabbatical year causes its proceeds to be subject to its sanctity and leaves to the non-sacred!?

The verse says: “Holy

it

shall be,”

it shall remain in its state

and shall not become permitted.

How

does the Sabbatical year cause its proceeds to be subject to its sanctity without itself leaving to the non-sacred?

If one purchased meat with Sabbatical-year produce: both this and that are removed in the Sabbatical year

at the time of removal of the produce, because the Sabbatical year caused its proceeds to be subject to its sanctity, while it itself does not leave to the non-sacred.

But if he went and purchased

with meat—

which had become subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical year—

fish: the meat left

the sanctity of the Sabbatical year, and

the fish entered

in its place, and the fish are removed at the time of removal of the produce.

He went and purchased

wine with fish: the fish left

and

the wine entered.

With wine, oil: the wine left

and

the oil entered—

How so? The last one is the one that becomes subject to the Sabbatical year, but the produce itself

[the produce of the Sabbatical year itself] always

remains forbidden.

And we still challenge concerning what was explained as the source that prohibitions of benefit do not cause their proceeds to be subject to the prohibition, namely that they are “two verses that come as one”:

This works according to the one who says

that two verses that come as one

do not teach; but according to the one who says

that two verses that come as one

do teach, what is there to say!?

For on the contrary, we should derive from idolatry and the Sabbatical year that prohibitions of benefit cause their proceeds to be subject to the prohibition.

And we explain:

Exclusions are written

both concerning idolatry and concerning the Sabbatical year, to teach that they apply to those cases and not to others:

For

it is written here

concerning idolatry: “

For it is a banned thing”;

“it” comes to exclude—it is that which is subject, but other prohibitions are not

; and it is written there

concerning the Sabbatical year: “

It is the Jubilee”;

and “it” comes to exclude:

it alone,

but

anything else—

not.

Mishna:

One who betroths with terumot,

or

one who betroths

with tithes, or

one who betroths

with gifts

[the foreleg, cheeks, and maw],

or with water of the red heifer

[water with which they mix the ashes of the red heifer],

or with the ashes of the red heifer

red—

she is betrothed.

And even an Israelite,

and the Gemara explains it.

Gemara:

Ulla said:

The benefit of discretion

that an Israelite has with terumot, tithes, and gifts

is not money

with which to betroth a woman, that is to say: one who betroths a woman with produce of the gifts of the priesthood [teruma and the foreleg, cheeks, and maw, or with tithes] that he must give to a priest or Levite, but may give to any priest he wishes, and may receive a benefit of discretion from a person in order to give it to a particular priest, and he betroths the woman with these—she is not betrothed.

Rabbi Abba raised an objection to Ulla

from our Mishna:

One who betroths with terumot, with tithes, with gifts, with water of the red heifer, or with the ashes of the red heifer, she is betrothed, and even an Israelite.

And it implies that this is what it says: Even if an Israelite betroths with these, she is betrothed; thus, although he has in them only the benefit of discretion, that he can give it to any priest or Levite he wishes, she is betrothed because he gave her that right!?

He said to him

Ulla to Rabba:

A priest or Levite who has untithed produce separates teruma and tithe in order to remove the produce from the status of untithed produce; however, he does not need to give them to a priest or Levite, but has himself acquired them.

A priest or Levite who had untithed produce and bequeathed it to the sons of his daughters, who are Israelites—the law of the recipients depends on the law of “gifts that have not been lifted are considered as though they have been lifted,” or not. For if they are considered as though they have already been lifted, the teruma was already in the priest’s possession and he acquired it, and likewise the tithe was in the Levite’s possession; and when he bequeathed them to the sons of his daughters, they acquired the untithed produce and the gifts in it, and they too need only separate them and take them for themselves.

Here—

what we learned: even an Israelite—

concerns an Israelite to whom untithed produce fell from the house of his maternal grandfather, a priest,

and the tanna holds

the tanna of the Mishna: “

gifts that have not been lifted”

—in the house of the priestly grandfather—

are considered as though they have been lifted,”

and the grandfather acquired them in order to bequeath them to his relatives, who will not need to give them to a priest when they separate them, but will separate them and keep them for themselves.

And concerning this teruma they said in our Mishna that he betroths with it, because it is his, and when she receives it from him it will be hers, and she will sell the teruma to a priest who will eat it.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin asked Rav Huna: Is the benefit of discretion money

it

or is it not money?

He said to him

Rav Huna to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin:

You have learned it

in our Mishna:

One who betroths with terumot, with tithes, and with gifts

and with water of the red heifer and with the ashes of the red heifer, she is betrothed, and even an Israelite.

Thus, an Israelite who has only the benefit of discretion in the teruma can betroth a woman with it; it is proven that “the benefit of discretion is money.”

He said to him

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin to Rav Huna:

And

is it the case that

we did not establish it

[did we not explain it]

as concerning an Israelite to whom untithed produce fell from the house of his maternal grandfather, a priest!?

And as the Gemara rejected the proof from our Mishna above.