## Kiddushin Daf 57a

###### Kiddushin 57a:1
[Kiddushin 57a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57a:1)

״אֶת״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ. כִּדְתַנְיָא: שִׁמְעוֹן הָעַמְסוֹנִי וְאָמְרִי לַהּ נְחֶמְיָה הָעַמְסוֹנִי הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ כׇּל אֶתִּין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא״, פֵּירַשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This Sage **does not interpret** the word **“*et*”** as a means to derive new *halakhot*. He considers the word “*et*” to be an ordinary part of the sentence structure and not a source for exegetical exposition. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Shimon HaAmasoni, and some say** that it was **Neḥemya HaAmasoni, would interpret all** occurrences of the word **“*et*” in the Torah,** deriving additional *halakhot* with regard to the particular subject matter. **Once he reached** the verse: **“You shall fear the Lord your God”** (Deuteronomy 6:13), which is written with the added word “*et*,” **he withdrew** from this method of exposition, as whose fear could be an extension of the fear of God?


###### Kiddushin 57a:2
[Kiddushin 57a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57a:2)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו: רַבִּי, כׇּל אֶתִּין שֶׁדָּרַשְׁתָּ מָה תְּהֵא עֲלֵיהֶם? אָמַר לָהֶם: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁקִּבַּלְתִּי שָׂכָר עַל הַדְּרִישָׁה, כָּךְ קִבַּלְתִּי עַל הַפְּרִישָׁה. עַד שֶׁבָּא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְלִימֵּד: ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא״ – לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**His students said to him: Our teacher, what will be with all** the occurrences of the word **“*et*” that you interpreted** until now? **He said to them: Just as I received reward for the exposition, so I received reward for** my **withdrawal** from using this method of exposition. The word “*et*” in this verse was not explained **until Rabbi Akiva came and expounded: “You shall fear the Lord your God”:** The word “*et*” serves **to include Torah scholars,** i.e., that one is commanded to fear them just as one fears God. In any event, Shimon HaAmasoni no longer derived additional *halakhot* from the word *et*.


###### Kiddushin 57a:3
[Kiddushin 57a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57a:3)

בְּעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה: מְנָלַן? אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: ״כַּפָּרָה״ כְּתִיב בַּהּ, כְּקָדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman **with a heifer whose neck is broken,** she is not betrothed. The Gemara clarifies: **From where do we** derive that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a heifer whose neck is broken? **The school of Rabbi Yannai said:** An expression of **atonement was written with regard to it.** The verse: “Atone for Your people Israel” (Deuteronomy 21:8), was written with regard to a heifer whose neck was broken, **as** was also written with regard to **sacrificial animals.** Therefore, one is prohibited from deriving benefit from it, just as one may not benefit from an offering.


###### Kiddushin 57a:4
[Kiddushin 57a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57a:4)

״צִיפּוֹרֵי מְצוֹרָע״ מְנָלַן? דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: נֶאֱמַר מַכְשִׁיר וּמְכַפֵּר מִבִּפְנִים, וְנֶאֱמַר מַכְשִׁיר וּמְכַפֵּר מִבַּחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman **with the leper’s birds,** she is not betrothed. The Gemara clarifies: **From where do we** derive that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a leper’s birds? **As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:** A mitzva that **enables is stated** in the verses with regard to a leper, **and** the Torah also discusses a mitzva that **atones,** both of which are performed **inside** the Temple. Here, a mitzva that enables is a reference to the leper’s guilt-offering, which enables him to partake of offerings; and a mitzva that atones is a reference to all other offerings. **And** a mitzva that **enables is stated** in the verses with regard to a leper, **and** the Torah also discusses a mitzva that **atones,** both of which are performed **outside** the Temple. Here, a mitzva that enables is a reference to the leper’s birds, which permit him to reenter the camp; and a mitzva that atones is a reference to the heifer whose neck is broken, which atones for the inhabitants of the city nearest to an unsolved murder.


###### Kiddushin 57a:5
[Kiddushin 57a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57a:5)

מָה מַכְשִׁיר וּמְכַפֵּר הָאָמוּר בִּפְנִים עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַכְשִׁיר כִּמְכַפֵּר – אַף מַכְשִׁיר וּמְכַפֵּר הָאָמוּר בַּחוּץ עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַכְשִׁיר כִּמְכַפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Just as** in the case of the **enabling and atoning** rites **stated** in the Torah that are performed **inside** the Temple the Torah **made** the item of **the enabling** rite, i.e., the leper’s guilt-offering, from which one is prohibited from deriving benefit, **like** the item of **the atoning** rite, i.e., offerings in general, **so too,** in the case of the **enabling and atoning** rites **stated** in the Torah that are performed **outside** the Temple the Torah **made** the item of **the enabling** rite, i.e., the leper’s birds, from which one is prohibited from deriving benefit, **like** the item of **the atoning** rite, i.e., the heifer whose neck is broken.


###### Kiddushin 57a:6
[Kiddushin 57a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57a:6)

אִיתְּמַר: צִיפּוֹרֵי מְצוֹרָע מֵאֵימָתַי אֲסוּרִים? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מִשְּׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מִשְּׁעַת לְקִיחָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מִשְּׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה, שְׁחִיטָה הוּא דְּאָסְרָה לַהּ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מִשְּׁעַת לְקִיחָה, מֵעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה נָפְקָא, מָה עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה מֵחַיִּים – אַף צִיפּוֹרֵי מְצוֹרָע מֵחַיִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was stated** that the *amora’im* disputed the following issue: **From when** is one **prohibited** from deriving benefit from **the leper’s birds? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From the moment of** their **slaughter; and Reish Lakish says: From the moment** they are **taken** and designated to be a leper’s birds. The Gemara explains their respective opinions: **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From the moment of** their **slaughter,** because **it is the slaughter that prohibits them,** since they are not consecrated beforehand. **Reish Lakish says: From the moment** they are **taken,** since this *halakha* **is derived from the heifer whose neck is broken. Just as** one is prohibited from deriving benefit from **a heifer whose neck is broken during** its **lifetime, so too,** one is prohibited from deriving benefit from the **leper’s birds during** their **lifetime.**


###### Kiddushin 57a:7
[Kiddushin 57a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57a:7)

וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה גּוּפַהּ מֵאֵימָתַי? אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: גְּבוּל שָׁמַעְתִּי בָּהּ וְשָׁכַחְתִּי, וְנָסְבִין חַבְרַיָּא לוֹמַר: יְרִידָתָהּ לְנַחַל אֵיתָן הִיא אוֹסַרְתָּהּ. אִי מָה עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה מִשְּׁעַת לְקִיחָה לָא מִיתַּסְרָא, אַף צִיפּוֹרֵי מְצוֹרָע נָמֵי מִשְּׁעַת לְקִיחָה לָא מִיתַּסְרִי! הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם אִית לֵיהּ גְּבוּל אַחֲרִינָא, הָכָא מִי אִית לֵיהּ גְּבוּל אַחֲרִינָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to it, **the heifer whose neck is broken, itself, from when** is it a forbidden item? **Rabbi Yannai said: I heard** the **boundary,** i.e., stage, beyond which **it** is forbidden, **but I have forgotten** what it is. **But the group** of scholars **were inclined to say** that **its descent to a hard valley,** where its neck is broken, **is** the action that **renders it forbidden.** The Gemara asks: **If** so, **just as** with **a heifer whose neck is broken, it is not forbidden from the moment** it is **taken** but only afterward, **so too, the leper’s birds should also not be forbidden from the moment** they are **taken.** The Gemara rejects this: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case of the heifer, **it has another boundary** that can render it forbidden, namely its descent to the valley; **here,** in the case of the leper’s birds, **does it have another boundary?** It is taken and immediately slaughtered.


###### Kiddushin 57a:8
[Kiddushin 57a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57a:8)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: ״כׇּל צִפּוֹר טְהֹרָה תֹּאכֵלוּ״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמְשׁוּלַּחַת, ״וְזֶה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מֵהֶם״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשְּׁחוּטָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מֵחַיִּים אֲסוּרָה, לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה מִיבַּעְיָא?! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַקֳּדָשִׁים, דְּמֵחַיִּים אֲסִירִי, וְאָתְיָא שְׁחִיטָה וּמַכְשְׁרָה לְהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish** from a *baraita*: The verse states: **“Of all clean birds you may eat”** (Deuteronomy 14:11). The superfluous word “all” is stated **to include** one of the leper’s birds, which is **sent away** to freedom, while the words: **“But these are they of which you shall not eat”** (Deuteronomy 14:12), are stated **to include** in the prohibition the other, **slaughtered** bird. Rabbi Yoḥanan asks: **And if it enters your mind** to say that the bird **is forbidden from** when it is **alive, is** a verse **necessary** to teach that it is forbidden **after** its **slaughter?** The Gemara answers: The verse is necessary, **lest you say: Just as it is in** the case **of sacrificial animals, where** one is **prohibited** from deriving benefit from **them when** they are **alive, and** the act of **slaughter comes and renders them fit** to be eaten, so too with regard to the bird. The verse **teaches us** that with regard to the leper’s bird this is not the case, and it remains forbidden even after it has been slaughtered.


###### Kiddushin 57a:9
[Kiddushin 57a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57a:9)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: שְׁחָטָהּ וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה – יִקַּח זוּג לַשְּׁנִיָּה, וְהָרִאשׁוֹנָה מוּתֶּרֶת בַּהֲנָאָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מֵחַיִּים אֲסוּרָה, הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אַמַּאי מוּתֶּרֶת בַּהֲנָאָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה בִּבְנֵי מֵעֶיהָ, דְּלָא חָל עֲלַהּ קְדוּשָּׁה כְּלָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **raised** another **objection to** Reish Lakish: The mishna (*Nega’im* 14:5) teaches that if one **slaughtered** one of the leper’s birds **and it was found** to be **a bird with a condition that would have caused it to die within twelve months [*tereifa*], a partner is taken for the second,** i.e., remaining, bird, **while** with regard to **the first** bird, i.e., the *tereifa*, one **is permitted to** derive **benefit** from it. **And if it enters your mind** that the bird **is forbidden from** when it is **alive, why is** one **permitted to** derive **benefit from the first one,** if the prohibition took effect before it was slaughtered? Reish Lakish **said to him: With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the slaughtered bird **was found** to be **a *tereifa* in its inner organs,** so **that** the **consecration did not take effect at all,** as the bird was not fit to be used for this purpose.


###### Kiddushin 57a:10
[Kiddushin 57a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57a:10)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּאֵזוֹב וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵץ אֶרֶז וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁנִי תוֹלַעַת, רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְהוּקְצָה לְמִצְוָתָהּ – אֲסוּרָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְנִשְׁחֲטָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתָהּ – מוּתֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **raised** another **objection to** Reish Lakish from a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Nega’im* 8:8): If he **slaughtered** the bird **without** bringing **a hyssop, or without** bringing **cedar wood, or without** bringing **a scarlet thread,** which were all used in the rite, **Rabbi Ya’akov says: Since** the bird **was set aside for its mitzva,** it is **forbidden** anyway. **Rabbi Shimon says: Since it was not slaughtered in accordance with its mitzva,** it is **permitted.**


###### Kiddushin 57a:11
[Kiddushin 57a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57a:11)

עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא מָר סָבַר: שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה – שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, וּמָר סָבַר: שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה – לֹא שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה. דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהָא מֵחַיִּים לָא מִיתַּסְרָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan infers from this: **They disagree only with regard to** this issue, that one **Sage,** Rabbi Ya’akov, **holds** that an act of **slaughter that is not fit** for accomplishing its full ritual purpose **is** nevertheless **considered** an act of **slaughter,** and the bird is therefore forbidden; **and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon, **holds** that an act of **slaughter that is not fit** for accomplishing its full ritual purpose **is not considered** an act of **slaughter** at all, and therefore one is permitted to derive benefit from the bird. **But everyone agrees at least** that one **is not prohibited from** deriving **benefit from it** when it is **alive,** but only after it has been slaughtered.


###### Kiddushin 57a:12
[Kiddushin 57a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57a:12)

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: נֶאֱמַר מַכְשִׁיר וּמְכַפֵּר מִבִּפְנִים, וְנֶאֱמַר מַכְשִׁיר וּמְכַפֵּר בַּחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish replied: I concede that this *baraita* does not accord with my opinion, but this issue **is** a dispute between the ***tanna’im*. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:** A mitzva that **enables is stated** in the verses with regard to a leper, **and** the Torah also discusses a mitzva that **atones,** both of which are performed **inside** the Temple. **And** a mitzva that **enables is stated** in the verses with regard to a leper, **and** the Torah also discusses a mitzva that **atones,** both of which are performed **outside** the Temple.


###### Kiddushin 57a:13
[Kiddushin 57a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57a:13)

מָה מַכְשִׁיר וּמְכַפֵּר הָאָמוּר בִּפְנִים – עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַכְשִׁיר כִּמְכַפֵּר, אַף מַכְשִׁיר וּמְכַפֵּר הָאָמוּר בַּחוּץ – עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַכְשִׁיר כִּמְכַפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Just as** in the case of the **enabling and atoning** rites **stated** in the Torah that are performed **inside** the Temple the Torah **made** the item of **the enabling** rite **like** the item of **the atoning** rite, **so too,** in the case of the **enabling and atoning** rites **stated** in the Torah that are performed **outside** the Temple, the Torah **made** the item of **the enabling** rite **like** the item of **the atoning** rite. The *baraita* of the school of Rabbi Yishmael compares the leper’s birds to a heifer whose neck is broken, and therefore would also prohibit one from deriving benefit from the birds before they are slaughtered. The opinion of Reish Lakish is therefore in accordance with that *baraita*.


###### Kiddushin 57a:14
[Kiddushin 57a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57a:14)

גּוּפָא: ״כָּל צִפּוֹר טְהֹרָה תֹּאכֵלוּ״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמְשׁוּלַּחַת, ״וְזֶה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מֵהֶם״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשְּׁחוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **the** matter **itself,** the *baraita* teaches: The verse states: **“Of all clean birds you may eat”** (Deuteronomy 14:11). The superfluous word “all” is stated **to include** one of **the** leper’s birds, which is **sent away** to freedom, while the words: **“But these are they of which you shall not eat”** (Deuteronomy 14:12), are stated **to include** in the prohibition **the** other, **slaughtered** bird.


###### Kiddushin 57a:15
[Kiddushin 57a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57a:15)

וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: לֹא מָצִינוּ בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים שֶׁאֲסוּרִים. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: וְלָא הֲרֵי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this interpretation: **And I will reverse** the exposition, and say that one may derive benefit from the slaughtered bird and not from the one that was sent away. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai:** The reason to expound the verse as the *baraita* does is that **we have not found** kosher **living creatures that are** permanently **forbidden** with regard to eating. Therefore, it stands to reason that the slaughtered bird is forbidden, not the living one. **Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak objects to this** explanation: **But haven’t** we found kosher living animals that are permanently forbidden? But **there are**