## Kiddushin Daf 57b

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

מוּקְצֶה וְנֶעֱבָד, דְּבַעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִינְהוּ וַאֲסִירִי! כִּי אֲסִירִי – לְגָבוֹהַּ, לְהֶדְיוֹט – מִישְׁרֵא שְׁרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the cases of an animal **set aside** as an offering to an idol, **and** an animal that was itself **worshipped** as an idol, **which are living creatures and** yet **are** permanently **forbidden.** The Gemara answers: There is a difference, as **when** they are **forbidden,** they are forbidden only to be used **for the Most High,** i.e., to be used as offerings in the Temple service, but it is permitted **for a common** Jew to derive benefit from them.


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הֲרֵי רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע בְּעֵדִים, דְּבַעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִינְהוּ וַאֲסִירִי! אֶלָּא: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: לֹא מָצִינוּ רוֹב בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים שֶׁאֲסוּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya objects to** the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan: **But** an animal that **copulated** with a woman, and an animal that **copulated** with a man, **in** the presence of **witnesses, they are living creatures and** yet they **are** permanently **forbidden,** as the *halakha* is that these animals are killed, and one is prohibited from deriving benefit from them once they have been sentenced. **Rather,** the above explanation should be emended to say: **Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: We have not found most** kosher **living creatures that are** permanently **forbidden** while they are still alive, and it can be assumed that the inclusion of the verse is referring to that which is generally forbidden, even if there are exceptions.


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

דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְשִׁלַּח עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה״ – כְּשָׂדֶה, מָה שָׂדֶה מוּתֶּרֶת – אַף הַאי נָמֵי מוּתֶּרֶת. הַאי ״שָׂדֶה״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״שָׂדֶה״ – שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲמוֹד בְּיָפוֹ וְיִזְרְקֶנָּה לַיָּם, בִּגְבָת וְיִזְרְקֶנָּה לַמִּדְבָּר, וְשֶׁלֹּא יַעֲמוֹד חוּץ לָעִיר וְיִזְרְקֶנָּה בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר. אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁעוֹמֵד בָּעִיר וְיִזְרְקֶנָּה חוּץ לַחוֹמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers another answer to the question of how the *baraita* knew which bird the verse is permitting. **The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: “And shall let go** the living bird **into the open field”** (Leviticus 14:7), which indicates that the bird is **like a field: Just as a field is permitted, so too, this** bird **is also permitted.** The Gemara asks: Is **that** word **“field” coming to** teach **this? That** word **is necessary for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: The word **“field”** teaches **that one may not stand in Jaffa and throw** the bird that is set free **to the sea,** or stand **in Gevat and throw it to the desert, and that he may not stand outside the city and throw it inside the city. Rather, any** manner in **which he is standing in the city and throws it outside the wall** to the field is valid. The word “field” teaches that one must set it free only to the field and nowhere else, not to teach that the bird is permitted.


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

וְאִידַּךְ? אִם כֵּן נִיכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״שָׂדֶה״, מַאי ״הַשָּׂדֶה״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the other** *tanna*, the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who derives that one is permitted to derive benefit from the bird based on the word “field,” replies: **If so,** that this was the only *halakha* the word is teaching, **let the Torah write “field”; what** is the significance of **“the field”? Conclude two** conclusions **from it,** i.e., both the place to throw the bird and the permission to derive benefit.


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

רָבָא אָמַר: לֹא אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״שַׁלַּח״ לְתַקָּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says** a different answer to the question of how the *baraita* knew which bird the verse is permitting: **The Torah did not say “let go” for** it to serve as a **stumbling block.** If the bird sent free was forbidden, the Torah would not have commanded him to send it away, since people might eat it unwittingly.


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

בִּשְׂעַר נָזִיר. מְנָלַן? דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״קָדֹשׁ יִהְיֶה גַּדֵּל פֶּרַע שְׂעַר רֹאשׁוֹ״ – גִּידּוּלוֹ יִהְיֶה קָדוֹשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman **with a nazirite’s hair,** she is not betrothed. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a nazirite’s hair? The Gemara answers: **As the verse states** with regard to a nazirite: **“He shall be holy [*kadosh*], he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long”** (Numbers 6:5), which teaches: **His** hair **growth shall be holy.**


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

אִי מָה קֹדֶשׁ תּוֹפֵס אֶת דָּמָיו, וְיוֹצֵא לְחוּלִּין – אַף שְׂעַר נָזִיר תּוֹפֵס אֶת דָּמָיו וְיוֹצֵא לְחוּלִּין! מִי קָרֵינַן ״קוֹדֶשׁ״? ״קָדוֹשׁ״ קָרֵינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** the hair of a nazirite can be compared to consecrated property by use of the term “holy,” then **just as** with regard to **consecrated** property, it **transfers** its sanctity to the **money** with which **it** is redeemed **and** it **becomes desacralized, so too, a nazirite’s hair should transfer** its sanctity to the **money** with which **it** is redeemed **and** the hair itself should become **desacralized.** This is not the *halakha*. The Gemara answers: **Do we read holy [*kodesh*]** in this verse, which is the term the verse uses for a consecrated item (see Leviticus 22:14)? **We read “holy [*kadosh*].”** Since a different conjugation of the term is used, the *halakhot* of the hair of a nazirite are not derived from those of consecrated property.


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

בְּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר. נֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּתַנְיָא: פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לְאַחַר עֲרִיפָה, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman **with a firstborn donkey,** she is not betrothed. The Gemara suggests: **Shall we say the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon? As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **a firstborn donkey,** deriving **benefit** from it **is prohibited;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon permits** it. **Rav Naḥman said** that **Rabba bar Avuh said:** The mishna can be referring to one who betrothed a woman with a firstborn donkey **after** it has had its **neck broken, and everyone agrees** that it is prohibited to derive benefit from the donkey once its neck is broken.


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

בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב. מְנָלַן? דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים: אֶחָד אִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה, וְאֶחָד אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה, וְאֶחָד אִיסּוּר בִּישּׁוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with **meat** cooked **in milk,** she is not betrothed. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from meat cooked in milk? **The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:** The Torah states **three times: “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk”** (Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21). **One** verse serves to teach **the prohibition** against **eating** meat cooked in milk, **and one** verse serves to teach **the prohibition** against deriving **benefit** from meat cooked in milk, **and one** verse serves to teach **the prohibition** against **cooking** meat in milk.


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

מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאַנְשֵׁי קֹדֶשׁ תִּהְיוּן לִי״. מָה לְהַלָּן אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה – אַף כָּאן אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **The mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **this *tanna*, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says:** It is **prohibited to eat meat** cooked **in milk but** one is **permitted to** derive **benefit** from it, **as** it **is stated: “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God. You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk”** (Deuteronomy 14:21), **and it states there** with regard to the prohibition of an unslaughtered animal carcass: **“And you shall be holy men to Me”** (Exodus 22:30). Since both verses employ the term “holy” he derives: **Just as there,** in the case of an animal carcass, it is **prohibited to eat** it **but** one is **permitted to** derive **benefit** from it, as the Torah explicitly states that it may be sold to a gentile, **so too here,** with regard to meat cooked in milk, it is **prohibited to eat** it **but** one is **permitted to** derive **benefit** from it.


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

וְחוּלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בַּעֲזָרָה. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: שְׁחוֹט לִי – בְּשֶׁלִּי. וְשֶׁלָּךְ – בְּשֶׁלָּךְ. מַה שֶׁלִּי בְּשֶׁלָּךְ – אָסוּר, אַף שֶׁלָּךְ בְּשֶׁלִּי – אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with the items it enumerated, **or** with **non-sacred** animals **that were slaughtered in the** Temple **courtyard,** she is not betrothed. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters,** i.e., that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, derived? **Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: The Torah said: Slaughter for Me,** i.e., for offerings to God, **in My** place, inside the Temple courtyard, **and your** non-sacred animals that are intended for eating should be slaughtered **in your** place, outside the Temple courtyard. **Just as** one is **prohibited** from deriving benefit from **My** consecrated animals if they were slaughtered **in your** place, as one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a consecrated animal slaughtered outside the Temple, **so too,** one is **prohibited** from deriving benefit from **your** non-sacred animals if they were slaughtered **in My** place.


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

אִי מָה שֶׁלִּי בְּשֶׁלָּךְ עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, אַף שֶׁלָּךְ בְּשֶׁלִּי עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא הֱבִיאוֹ לְהַקְרִיב קׇרְבָּן לַה׳... וְנִכְרַת״, עַל קׇרְבָּן – עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, עַל חוּלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בַּעֲזָרָה – אֵין עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** so, **just as** the act of slaughtering **My** consecrated animals **in your** place is **punishable by *karet*, so too,** to the act of slaughtering **your** non-sacred animals **in My** place should be **punishable by *karet*.** To counter this logic, **the verse states:** “If a man from the house of Israel slaughters an ox or lamb…**and has not brought it to the door of the Tent of Meeting to sacrifice an offering to the Lord…and that man shall be cut off”** (Leviticus 17:3–4). This teaches that it is only **for an offering** that one slaughtered outside the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle, or the Temple courtyard, that **he is punishable with *karet*,** but **for non-sacred** animals that one slaughtered **in the** Temple **courtyard he is not punishable with *karet*.**


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

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְשֶׁלִּי בְּשֶׁלָּךְ – שֶׁכֵּן עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: In light of the above difference in *halakha* between these two cases, the entire comparison **can be refuted** in the following manner: **What** is an aspect unique **to** slaughtering **My** consecrated animals **in your** place? It **is** that it is **punishable by *karet*,** and is therefore a severe prohibition, which could explain the *halakha* that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from them. The prohibition against slaughtering a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard, which is not punishable by *karet*, could be regarded as a less severe prohibition, and perhaps in this case it is permitted to derive benefit from the slaughtered animal. Therefore, the *halakha* that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard still does not have a source.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מֵהָכָא: ״וּשְׁחָטוֹ״ ״וְשָׁחַט אֹתוֹ״ ״וְשָׁחַט אֹתוֹ״. תְּלָתָא קְרָאֵי יַתִּירֵי, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye quotes a lengthy *baraita* that serves as a source for the *halakha* that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. **Rather, Abaye said** it is derived **from here:** The Torah states **three verses that** have **a superfluous** element with regard to the various species from which one may bring a peace-offering: The verse **“and he slaughters it”** (Leviticus 3:2), the verse **“and he shall slaughter it”** (Leviticus 3:8), and the verse **“and he shall slaughter it”** (Leviticus 3:13). The Torah could simply have stated: “And he shall slaughter,” without adding: “It.” **Why** must **the verse state** the term “it” these three times?


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

לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי יִרְחַק מִמְּךָ הַמָּקוֹם... וְזָבַחְתָּ״, בְּרִחוּק מָקוֹם אַתָּה זוֹבֵחַ וְאִי אַתָּה זוֹבֵחַ בְּמָקוֹם קָרוֹב, פְּרָט לְחוּלִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁחֲטוּ בַּעֲזָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: The source for the *halakha* is **because it is stated** with regard to the ritual slaughter of animals for meat consumption: **“If the place** which the Lord your God shall choose to put His name there **be too far from you, then you shall slaughter** of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:21), from which it is derived: **When** you are **far from the place,** i.e., the Temple, **you may slaughter** non-sacred animals for meat consumption, **but you may not slaughter** non-sacred animals **in a near place,** i.e., in the Temple. The verse serves to **exclude non-sacred** animals, thereby teaching **that they may not be slaughtered in the** Temple **courtyard.**


###### Kiddushin 57b:16
[Kiddushin 57b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57b:16)

וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא תְּמִימִים הָרְאוּיִם לִיקָּרֵב, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִים, שֶׁכֵּן: מִין הַמַּכְשִׁיר. מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַחַיָּה? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת הַחַיָּה, שֶׁהִיא בִּשְׁחִיטָה כִּבְהֵמָה. מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָעוֹפוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּשְׁחָטוֹ״ ״וְשָׁחַט אוֹתוֹ״ ״וְשָׁחַט אוֹתוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And I have** derived the prohibition against slaughtering a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard **only** with regard to **unblemished** animals, **which are fit to be sacrificed. From where** do I know **to include** even **blemished** animals, which are not fit to be sacrificed, in this prohibition? **I include blemished** animals **since** they are at least of **the type that is fit** to be sacrificed. **From where** do I know **to include the undomesticated animal,** which is never sacrificed as an offering, in this prohibition? **I include the undomesticated animal since it** is rendered fit for consumption **by** means of **slaughtering, like a domesticated animal. From where** do I know **to include fowl,** as the Torah does not mention slaughter with regard to fowl, in this prohibition? **The verse states: “And he slaughters it,” “and he shall slaughter it,”** as well as **“and he shall slaughter it,”** employing the additional term “it” each time. These three verses teach that one may not slaughter any non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard.


###### Kiddushin 57b:17
[Kiddushin 57b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57b:17)

יָכוֹל לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט, וְאִם שָׁחַט יְהֵא מוּתָּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי יִרְחַק מִמְּךָ הַמָּקוֹם... וְזָבַחְתָּ... וְאָכַלְתָּ״, מַה שֶּׁאַתָּה זוֹבֵחַ בְּרִחוּק מָקוֹם – אַתָּה אוֹכֵל, וְאִי אַתָּה אוֹכֵל מַה שֶּׁאַתָּה זוֹבֵחַ בְּמָקוֹם קָרוֹב, פְּרָט לְחוּלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בַּעֲזָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought that **one may not slaughter** *ab initio* **but if he did slaughter it would be permitted for him** to eat it. Therefore, **the verse states: “If the place** which the Lord your God shall choose to put His name there **be too far from you, then you shall slaughter** of your herd and of your flock, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you, **and you shall eat** within your gates, after all the desire of your soul” (Deuteronomy 12:21), which is expounded as follows: **That which you slaughter in a far place,** outside the Temple, **you may eat, but you may not eat that which you slaughter in a near place,** which **excludes non-sacred** animals **that were slaughtered in the** Temple **courtyard.** Therefore, it is prohibited to eat a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard even after the fact.


###### Kiddushin 57b:18
[Kiddushin 57b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/57b:18)

וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא תְּמִימִים

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And I have** derived **only** that the prohibition against eating the meat after the fact applies to **unblemished** animals,