Kiddushin

He does not interpret eth.1 As it was taught: Simeon the Imsonite2 — others state, Nehemiah the Imsonite, — interpreted every eth in the Torah,3 but as soon as he came to, thou shalt fear [eth] the Lord thy God,4 he refrained.5 Said his disciples to him, ‘Master, what is to happen with all the ethin6 which you have interpreted?’ ‘Just as I received reward for interpreting [them],’ he replied: ‘so do I receive reward for retracting.’7 Subsequently8 R. Akiba came and taught: Thou shalt fear [eth] the Lord thy God, that is to include scholars.9 THE HEIFER WHICH IS BEHEADED: How do we know it? — Said the School of R. Jannai: ‘Forgiveness’ is stated in connection therewith, 10 as with sacrifices.11 A LEPER'S BIRD-OFFERINGS: How do we know it? — For the School of R. Ishmael taught: Qualifying and atoning [sacrifices] are mentioned within [the Temple], and qualifying and atoning [sacrifices] are mentioned without: just as with the qualifying and atoning [sacrifices] mentioned within [the Temple], qualifying is made equal to atoning [sacrifices], so with the qualifying and atoning [sacrifices] mentioned without, the qualifying [sacrifice] is made equal to that which atones.12 It was stated: From what time are a leper's birds forbidden?13 R. Johanan maintained: From the time of slaughter;14 Resh Lakish said: From the time they are taken.15 ‘R. Johanan maintained, From the time of slaughter,’ it is the slaughter that renders it forbidden. ‘Resh Lakish said: From the time they are taken’ — it is learned from the heifer that is to be beheaded. Just as the heifer that is to be beheaded is [forbidden] while it yet lives,16 so are the leper's birds [forbidden] while yet alive. And from what time is the heifer that is to be beheaded itself forbidden? — Said R. Jannai: I have heard a time limit for it, but have forgotten it: while our colleagues maintain,17 Its descent to the rugged valley,18 that renders it forbidden.19 If so, just as the heifer that is to be beheaded is not forbidden from the time it is taken, so are the leper's birds not forbidden from when they are taken? — How now! There it has another determining point;20 but here, is there any other determining point?21 R. Johanan raised an objection to Resh Lakish: Of all clean birds ye may eat:22 this includes the bird that is set free.23 But these are they of which ye shall not eat:24 that includes the slaughtered bird.25 But should you think that it is forbidden while yet alive, is it necessary [to state it] after slaughter? — You might argue: It is analogous to sacrifices, which are forbidden whilst alive,26 yet the slaughtering comes and qualifies them [as food]; therefore we are told [otherwise]. He raised an objection: If it is slaughtered and found to be trefa,27 he must take a companion for the second,28 and benefit from the first is permitted. But should you think that it is forbidden while yet alive, why may one benefit from the first!29 — The circumstances here are, e.g., it was found to be trefa in its inwards,30 so that no sanctity fell upon it at all. He raised an objection: If it is slaughtered without the hyssop, the cedar wood and the scarlet thread,31 — R. Jacob said: Since it was set aside for its religious purposes it is forbidden; R. Simeon said: Since it was not slaughtered according to its regulations, it is permitted. Now, they differ only in so far as one Master holds that an unfit slaughtering32 is designated slaughtering;33 while the other Master holds that such is not designated slaughtering; but all agree at least that it is not forbidden while yet alive? — It is [a controversy of] Tannaim. For the School of Ishmael taught: ‘Qualifying’ and ‘atoning’ are mentioned within [the Temple], and ‘qualifying’ and ‘atoning’ are mentioned without: just as with the ‘qualifying’ and ‘atoning’ mentioned within, ‘qualifying’ is made equal to ‘atoning’, so with the ‘qualifying’ and ‘atoning’ mentioned without, ‘qualifying’ is made equal to ‘atoning’.34 The text [above stated]: ‘Of all clean birds ye may eat: this includes the bird that is set free. But these are they which ye shall not eat: that includes the slaughtered bird.’ But may I not reverse it? — Said R. Johanan on the authority of R. Simeon b. Yohai: We do not find live creatures [permanently] forbidden.35 R. Samuel son of R. Isaac demurred: Do we not? But elsewhere. — It is a tribute to his character that although he must have interpreted an enormous number, he was prepared to admit his error and set them all aside. i.e., to purify him from uncleanness; ‘atoning’, a sacrifice to atone for sin. Now, in his purification rites, a leper brought birds, which were sacrificed without the Temple (Lev. XIV, 2ff.) and an animal guilt-offering, which was sacrificed within the Temple (vv. 10-13). Though technically called a guilt-offering, its purpose was nevertheless purificatory, since he had not sinned. Again, the purpose of the beheaded heifer, whose rites were performed without the Temple, was atonement. Whilst within the Temple, all other guilt-offerings, excepting the leper's, had the same object. Now, just as Scripture draws no distinction between a leper's guilt-offering (qualifying) and other guilt-offerings (atonement) which are sacrificed within the Temple, so is no distinction drawn between ‘qualifying’ and ‘atoning’ without the Temple, i.e., between a leper's birds and the beheaded heifer. Since therefore betrothal with the latter is invalid, it is likewise so with the former. it is actually freed. — Tosaf. then was that prohibition lifted? too. Thus the School of Ishmael disagrees with R. Jacob and R. Simeon.