Kiddushin

This [holds good] if he [the vendor] has fled. Thus, the reason is that he has fled, but otherwise, we penalize the vendor:1 but let us penalize the purchaser?2 — Not the mouse steals, but the hole steals!3 Yet but for the mouse, what harm is done by the hole! — It is reasonable that where the transgression lies, there we impose a penalty.4 MISHNAH. IF HE BETROTHS [A WOMAN] WITH ‘ORLAH, OR KIL'AYIM5 OF THE VINEYARD, OR AN OX CONDEMNED TO BE STONED,6 OR THE HEIFER WHICH IS TO BE BEHEADED,7 OR A LEPER'S BIRD-OFFERINGS,8 OR A NAZIRITE'S HAIR, OR THE FIRSTLING OF AN ASS, OR MEAT [SEETHED] IN MILK,9 OR HULLIN10 SLAUGHTERED IN THE TEMPLE COURT, SHE IS NOT BETROTHED.11 IF HE SELLS THEM AND BETROTHS [HER] WITH THE PROCEEDS,12 SHE IS BETROTHED.13 GEMARA. WITH ‘ORLAH: How do we know it? — Because it was taught: They shall be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten:14 thus I know only the prohibition of eating; whence do we know [that all] benefit [is forbidden], [i.e.,] that one must derive no benefit therefrom, [e.g.,] not dye nor kindle a lamp therewith? From the verse: ‘Then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised,’ which includes all. [WITH] KIL'AYIM OF THE VINEYARD. How do we know it? — Said Hezekiah, Scripture saith, [Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds:] lest [the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard,] be defiled [tikdash]:15 i.e., tukad esh [it shall be burnt in fire]. R. Ashi said: [Interpret,] Lest it be as sanctified.16 If so, just as a sanctified object transfers its character to its purchase price,17 and itself becomes hullin, so should kil'ayim of the vineyard transfer its character to its purchase price, and itself become hullin?18 Hence it must clearly be [explained] as Hezekiah. [WITH] AN OX CONDEMNED TO BE STONED. How do we know it? — Because it was taught: From the implication of the verse, the ox shall be surely stoned,19 do I not know that it is nebelah,20 which is forbidden as food? Why then is it stated, and his flesh shall not be eaten?19 It informs you that if it was killed after the trial was ended,21 it may not be eaten, How do we know that benefit [is forbidden]? From the verse, and the owner of the ox shall be clear. How is this implied? — Said Simeon b. Zoma: As a man may say to his friend, ‘So-and-so has gone out clear from his property, and has no benefit whatsoever from it.’ Now, how do you know that this [verse], ‘and his flesh shall tot be eaten,’ comes [to teach the law] if it is [ritually] killed after the trial is ended: perhaps where it is killed after sentence, it is permitted, and this [verse], ‘and it shall not be eaten,’ refers22 to when it is indeed stoned, and [its teaching is that of] R. Abbahu in R. Eleazar's name. For R. Abbahu said in R. Eleazar's name: Wherever it is said: It shall not, be eaten, thou shalt not eat, ye shall not eat, the prohibitions of both eating and benefit [in general] are understood, unless the writ expressly states [otherwise], as it does in the case of nebelah!23 — That is only where the prohibition of food is derived from, it shall not be eaten;24 but here the prohibition of eating follows from, ‘it shalt surely be stoned’: for should you think that it is written to intimate prohibition of benefit, Scripture should state, ‘and he shall not benefit’,25 or, ‘it shall not be eaten’: why add, ‘its flesh’? [To shew that] even if it is slaughtered like [other] flesh, it is [still] forbidden. Mar Zutra objected: Yet perhaps that is only if one examines a stone, [finds its edge perfectly free from a notch] and kills therewith, for it looks like stoning; but not if it is slaughtered with a knife? — Is then a knife stipulated in the Torah?26 Moreover, it was taught: One may slaughter with everything,27 with a stone, glass, or a reed haulm. But now that the prohibitions of both eating and benefit are derived from, ‘it shall not be eaten,’ what is the purpose of this [clause], ‘and the owner of the ox shall be clear’?28 — In respect of the benefit of its skin.29 I might think, ‘its flesh shall not be eaten’ is written: [hence] its flesh is forbidden while its hide is permitted. Now, according to those Tannaim who employ this verse: ‘and the owner of the ox shall be clear’, as referring to half ransom and indemnification for children,30 how do they know [that] the benefit of the hide [is forbidden]? — From ‘eth besaro’ [‘its flesh’], meaning, that which is joined to its flesh.31 And the other?32 by this money I have,’ and then expend the new money in Jerusalem (Tosaf.). of the sale. Now, a stoned ox is nebelah, and so I might think that benefit is permitted; therefore Scripture states that its flesh shall not be eaten, thus intimating the contrary. And as to the verse ‘and the owner of the ox shall be clear’, it is needed for some other deduction v. infra. including the latter. But when only the latter is needed, the former already being known, surely benefit should be expressly stated? and the gullet without undue delay; v, J.D. 23, – 4. Payment for child: v. ibid. 22; I might think that the same holds good when the damage is done by a man's ox. Therefore ‘and the owner of the ox shall be clear’ (E.V. quit) teaches that he is free from both.