## Kiddushin Daf 58a

###### Kiddushin 58a:1
[Kiddushin 58a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58a:1)

הָרְאוּיִם לִיקְרַב, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין, שֶׁכֵּן: מִין הַמַּכְשִׁיר. וּמִנַּיִן 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:**
**which are fit to be sacrificed. From where** do I know **to include blemished** animals in this prohibition? **I include blemished** animals **since** they are at least of **the type that is fit** to be sacrificed. **And from where** do I know **to include the undomesticated animal** 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 birds,** as the Torah does not mention slaughter with regard to birds, 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 eat from a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard


###### Kiddushin 58a:2
[Kiddushin 58a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58a:2)

יָכוֹל לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט, וְאִם שָׁחַט יַשְׁלִיכֶנּוּ לִפְנֵי כְלָבִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִכוּן אֹתוֹ״ – אוֹתוֹ אַתָּה מַשְׁלִיךְ לַכֶּלֶב, וְאִי אַתָּה מַשְׁלִיךְ חוּלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בַּעֲזָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought that **he may not slaughter** a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard *ab initio*, **but if he did slaughter** it, **he may cast it before the dogs,** i.e., derive benefit from it. **The verse states:** “Therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; **you shall cast it to the dogs”** (Exodus 22:30), which teaches that although one is prohibited from eating the meat of a *tereifa*, one may derive benefit from it. The word “it” serves to emphasize and exclude: **You may cast it,** i.e., a *tereifa*, **to the dogs, but you may not cast non-sacred** animals **that have been slaughtered in the** Temple **courtyard,** as it is prohibited to derive any benefit from them.


###### Kiddushin 58a:3
[Kiddushin 58a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58a:3)

אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ מָר יְהוּדָה לְרַב יוֹסֵף וּלְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה דַּהֲווֹ קָיְימִי אַפִּיתְחָא דְּבֵי רַבָּה. אֲמַר לְהוּ: תַּנְיָא: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר, בְּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב, וּבְחוּלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בָּעֲזָרָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אַלְמָא חוּלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בַּעֲזָרָה לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Mar Yehuda found Rav Yosef and Rav Shmuel, son of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, standing at the entrance of Rabba’s study hall. He said to them:** It **is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who betroths** a woman **with a firstborn donkey, with meat** cooked **in milk, or with non-sacred** animals **slaughtered in the** Temple **courtyard, Rabbi Shimon says she is betrothed, and the Rabbis say she is not betrothed. Apparently, according to Rabbi Shimon,** the prohibition against deriving benefit from **non-sacred** animals **slaughtered in the** Temple **courtyard is not by Torah law,** which is why the betrothal takes effect.


###### Kiddushin 58a:4
[Kiddushin 58a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58a:4)

וּרְמִינְהוּ: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: חוּלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בַּעֲזָרָה – יִשָּׂרְפוּ, וְכֵן חַיָּה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה בַּעֲזָרָה. אִישְׁתִּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Mar Yehuda **raises a contradiction** against this inference from a different *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon says: Non-sacred,** domesticated, animals **slaughtered in the** Temple **courtyard** must **be burned, as well as a** non-sacred **undomesticated animal slaughtered in the** Temple **courtyard.** This indicates that it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. **They were silent** and had no answer.


###### Kiddushin 58a:5
[Kiddushin 58a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58a:5)

אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה. אֲמַר לְהוּ: פָּלְגָאָ[ה] אוֹקְמִינְכוּ, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְטַעְמֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They came before Rabba** and told him about this difficulty. **He said to them: A quarrelsome** person **has put you up** to asking this question. **With what are we dealing here** in the first *baraita*? We are dealing with a case **where it was slaughtered and found** to be **a *tereifa*, and Rabbi Shimon** conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning** that an act of slaughter which does not render the animal permitted to be eaten is not called slaughter, so the animal does not have the status of a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.


###### Kiddushin 58a:6
[Kiddushin 58a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58a:6)

דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַטְּרֵיפָה וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה – זֶה וָזֶה חוּלִּין בַּעֲזָרָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר בַּהֲנָאָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Ḥullin* 2:4): With regard to **one who slaughters** a known ***tereifa*, as well as one who slaughters** an animal **and it was found** to be **a *tereifa*,** and **this and that** were **non-sacred** animals slaughtered **in the** Temple **courtyard, Rabbi Shimon permits** one **to** derive **benefit** from them, as explained previously. **And the Rabbis prohibit** one from deriving benefit from them, since they do not distinguish between an act of slaughter that does render the animal permitted to be eaten and one that does not. It is only in a case where the man betrothed her with a *tereifa* that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard that Rabbi Shimon says she is betrothed, but not when the animal was not a *tereifa*.


###### Kiddushin 58a:7
[Kiddushin 58a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58a:7)

מְכָרָן וְקִידֵּשׁ בִּדְמֵיהֶן – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. מְנָלַן? מִדְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה: ״וְהָיִיתָ חֵרֶם כָּמֹהוּ״, כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה מְהַיֶּיה הֵימֶנָּה – הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ, מִכְּלָל דְּכׇל אִיסּוּרִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שְׁרוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if **one sold** any of the items from which one is prohibited to derive benefit **and betrothed** a woman **with** the **money** received from **their** sale, **she is betrothed.** With regard to the possibility of deriving benefit from money received in exchange for items from which benefit is forbidden, the Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that this is permitted? The Gemara answers: It is **from** the fact that **the Merciful One reveals** in the Torah **with regard to** an object of **idol worship: “And you shall be banned like it”** (Deuteronomy 7:26), which teaches that **anything that you** cause to **come from it,** i.e., in exchange for it, **is like it.** It can be understood **by inference that** with regard to **all** the other **prohibitions of the Torah,** monies received for items from which benefit is forbidden are **permitted.**


###### Kiddushin 58a:8
[Kiddushin 58a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58a:8)

וְנֵילַף מִינַּהּ! מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּשְׁבִיעִית שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וְכֹל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **But let us derive** a general principle concerning other prohibitions **from** the case of idolatry. The Gemara answers: This derivation is not applied, **because** an object of **idol worship and** produce of the **Sabbatical** Year **are two verses that come as one,** i.e., to teach the same matter, since both prohibitions also extend to the money obtained for them, **and any two verses that come as one do not teach** their common aspect to apply to other cases.


###### Kiddushin 58a:9
[Kiddushin 58a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58a:9)

עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. שְׁבִיעִית מַאי הִיא? ״יוֹבֵל הִיא קֹדֶשׁ תִּהְיֶה לָכֶם״ – מָה קוֹדֶשׁ תּוֹפֵס אֶת דָּמָיו, אַף שְׁבִיעִית תּוֹפֶסֶת דָּמֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: The source indicating that this is true of an object of **idol worship** is **what we said. What is** the source indicating that this *halakha* applies to produce of the **Sabbatical** Year? The verse states: **“It is a Jubilee, it shall be holy to you”** (Leviticus 25:12), from which it is derived: **Just as consecrated property transfers** its sanctity to the **money** with which **it** is redeemed, **so too,** produce of **the Sabbatical** Year, which has the same status as the Jubilee Year, **transfers** its sanctity to the **money** with which it is redeemed. Consequently, money used to acquire the produce of the Sabbatical Year will be subject to the same *halakhot* as the produce itself.


###### Kiddushin 58a:10
[Kiddushin 58a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58a:10)

אִי מָה קוֹדֶשׁ תּוֹפֵס אֶת דָּמָיו וְיוֹצֵא לְחוּלִּין, אַף שְׁבִיעִית תּוֹפֶסֶת דָּמֶיהָ וְיוֹצְאָה לְחוּלִּין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּהְיֶה״ – בַּהֲוָיָיתָהּ תְּהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** so, one could also say that **just as** with **consecrated** property, it **transfers** its sanctity to the **money** with which **it** is redeemed **and becomes desacralized, so too,** produce of the **Sabbatical** Year should **transfer** its sanctity to the **money** with which it is redeemed and **becomes desacralized.** Nevertheless, **the verse states: “Shall be,”** meaning: **As it is,** so **it shall be,** indicating that the Sabbatical-Year produce does not become desacralized.


###### Kiddushin 58a:11
[Kiddushin 58a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58a:11)

כֵּיצַד? לָקַח בְּפֵירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית בָּשָׂר – אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ מִתְבַּעֲרִים בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. בַּבָּשָׂר דָּגִים – יָצָא בָּשָׂר נִכְנְסוּ דָּגִים. בְּדָגִים יַיִן – יָצְאוּ דָּגִים נִכְנַס יַיִן. בְּיַיִן שֶׁמֶן – יָצָא יַיִן נִכְנַס שֶׁמֶן. הָא כֵּיצַד? אַחֲרוֹן אַחֲרוֹן נִתְפָּס בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, וּפְירִי עַצְמוֹ אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **How so?** If one **purchased meat with produce** of the **Sabbatical** Year, both **these and those,** i.e., the meat and the produce, **are disposed of in the Sabbatical** Year. The sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect with regard to the meat as well. It is treated like the produce, and must be disposed of when the obligation to dispose of the Sabbatical-Year produce goes into effect. If he then purchases **fish with** this **meat,** the **meat loses** its consecrated status, and the **fish assumes** the consecrated state. If he then purchases **wine with** these **fish,** the **fish loses** its consecrated status and the **wine assumes** the consecrated state. If he then purchases **oil with** the **wine,** the **wine loses** has its consecrated status and the **oil assumes** the consecrated state. **How so? The final** item purchased has the sanctity **of** the **Sabbatical** Year **transferred** to it, **and the** Sabbatical-Year **produce itself** remains **forbidden.**


###### Kiddushin 58a:12
[Kiddushin 58a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58a:12)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְלַמְּדִין, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְלַמְּדִין מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? [תְּרֵי] מִיעוּטֵי כְּתִיבִי, כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״כִּי חֵרֶם הוּא״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״יוֹבֵל הִיא״ – הִיא אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says** that any two verses that come as one **do not teach** their common aspect to apply to other cases. **But according to the one who says that they do teach** their common aspect to apply to other cases, **what can be said?** Why is it not learned from these examples that money received from the sale of an item from which benefit is forbidden, is likewise forbidden? The Gemara answers: Expressions of **restriction are written** in both cases. **Here,** with regard to idol worship, it **is written: “For it is banned”** (Deuteronomy 7:26), which indicates only that it is banned, i.e., has its prohibition extend to money received from its sale, while other prohibited items are not. **And there,** with regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year, it **is written: “It is a Jubilee”** (Leviticus 25:12), which teaches that with regard to **“it,” yes,** this *halakha* applies; but this *halakha* does **not** apply to **anything else.**


###### Kiddushin 58a:13
[Kiddushin 58a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58a:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בִּתְרוּמוֹת וּבַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת, וּבַמַּתָּנוֹת, וּבְמֵי חַטָּאת, וּבְאֵפֶר חַטָּאת – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וַאֲפִילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who betroths** a woman **with *terumot*, or with tithes, or with** the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach of an animal, which are given as **gifts** to priests, **or with the water of purification,** which is sprinkled on an impure person during the purification rite for impurity imparted by a corpse, **or with the ashes of purification,** which were mixed with the water sprinkled on an impure person during the purification rite for impurity imparted by a corpse, in all of these cases **she is betrothed, and** this is so **even if** the man betrothing her is **an Israelite,** not a priest or a Levite.


###### Kiddushin 58a:14
[Kiddushin 58a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58a:14)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר עוּלָּא: טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה אֵינָהּ מָמוֹן. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְעוּלָּא: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בִּתְרוּמוֹת, וּבְמַעַשְׂרוֹת, וּבַמַּתָּנוֹת בְּמֵי חַטָּאת, וּבְאֵפֶר פָּרָה – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וַאֲפִילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Ulla says:** The **benefit of discretion,** i.e., the benefit accrued from the option of giving *teruma* and tithes to whichever priest or Levite one chooses, **does not have monetary** value. **Rabbi Abba raised an objection to Ulla** from the mishna: With regard to **one who betroths** a woman **with *terumot*, or with tithes, or with gifts, with the water of purification, or with the ashes** of the red **heifer, she is betrothed, and** this is so **even if** the man betrothing her is **an Israelite.** This indicates that although an Israelite cannot consume the priestly gifts, he may nevertheless betroth a woman with them, since he possesses the option to give them to the priest or Levite of his choice. That benefit has monetary value, and it is that value that he uses to betroth a woman, who can then give them to whichever priest or Levite she chooses.


###### Kiddushin 58a:15
[Kiddushin 58a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58a:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לוֹ טְבָלִים מִבֵּית אֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹּהֵן. וְקָא סָבַר: מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ כְּמִי שֶׁהוּרְמוּ דָּמְיָין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ulla **said to him:** You have misunderstood the case of the mishna, since **here** the case is **with an Israelite who came into** possession of **untithed produce** as an inheritance **from the household of his mother’s father,** who was **a priest, and** the *tanna* of the mishna **holds** that **gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated.** The untithed produce is not viewed as one entity, but rather is viewed as a mixture of regular produce, *teruma*, and tithes. This *teruma* belonged to his grandfather, who was a priest. Since he has inherited this *teruma*, he has ownership rights to it in addition to the benefit of discretion. While he cannot consume this produce because he is an Israelite, he can sell it to a priest and keep the money. Since it has actual value, it can be used to betroth a woman.


###### Kiddushin 58a:16
[Kiddushin 58a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/58a:16)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין מֵרַב הוּנָא: טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה מָמוֹן אוֹ אֵינָהּ מָמוֹן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנֵיתוּהָ: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בִּתְרוּמוֹת וּבְמַעַשְׂרוֹת וּבְמַתָּנוֹת בְּמֵי חַטָּאת וּבְאֵפֶר פָּרָה – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וַאֲפִילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלָאו אוֹקֵימְנָא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לוֹ טְבָלִים מִבֵּית אֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹּהֵן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this issue, **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin inquired of Rav Huna:** Does the **benefit of discretion have monetary** value, **or does it not have monetary** value? Rav Huna **said to him: You learned it** in the mishna: With regard to **one who betroths** a woman **with *terumot*, or with tithes, or with gifts,** or **with the water of purification, or with the ashes** of the red **heifer, she is betrothed, and** this is so **even if** the man betrothing her is **an Israelite.** This indicates that the benefit of discretion has monetary value. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin **said to him: But didn’t we establish it,** in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as referring **to an Israelite who came into** possession of **untithed produce** as an inheritance **from the household of his mother’s father,** who was **a priest?**