Kiddushin

what of a designated animal1 and a worshipped animal,2 which though living creatures, are yet forbidden?3 — They are forbidden only in respect of the Most High, but are indeed permitted for ordinary use.4 R. Jeremiah demurred: But animals, active or passive participants in bestiality attested by witnesses, are living creatures and yet forbidden?5 But, said R. Johanan, we do not find as a rule live creatures that are [permanently] forbidden.6 The School of R. Ishmael taught: Because Scripture saith, and he shall let go the living bird it to the open field:7 just as the field is permitted, so is this [bird] too permitted. Does ‘field’ come to teach this? But it is required for what was taught. ‘Field’ [teaches] that one must not stand in Joppa8 and cast it into the sea, or in Gabbath9 and cast it to the wilderness, or stand without the city and throw it into the city; but he must stand within the city and throw it beyond the wall. And the other?10 — If so, Scripture should write, ‘field’: why ‘the field’? Hence both are inferred. Raba said: The Torah did not order, ‘Send it away’, for a stumbling-block.11 WITH A NAZIRITE'S HAIR, How do we know it? Because Scripture saith, He shall be holy, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long,12 [teaching], his growth shall be holy.13 If so, just as a holy object stamps its purchase price14 and itself passes out into hullin, so should the nazirite's hair stamp its purchase price and itself pass out into hullin?15 — Do we then read kodesh? We read kadosh.16 WITH THE FIRSTLING OF AN ASS. Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Simeon? For it was taught: Benefit is forbidden from the firstling of an ass: this is R. Judah's opinion; but R. Simeon permits it! — Said R. Nahman in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: This means after its neck was broken,17 and so agrees with all.18 MEAT [SEETHED] IN MILK. How do we know it? — For the School of R. Ishmael taught: Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk [is stated] three times:19 one is a prohibition against eating, one a prohibition of benefit [in general], and one a prohibition of seething.20 Our Mishnah does not agree with the following Tanna. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Judah21 said: Meat [seethed] in Milk may not be eaten, but benefit is permitted, for it is said: For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk;22 whilst elsewhere it is said: And ye shall be holy men unto me: [therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.]:23 just as there it may not be eaten, yet benefit is permitted, so here too. AND HULLIN SLAUGHTERED IN THE TEMPLE COURT. How do we know it? — Said R. Johanan on R. Meir's authority: The Torah decreed, slaughter mine [i.e., sacrifices] in mine [i.e., the Temple] and thine [i.e., hullin] in thine [i.e., without the Temple]: just as mine [slaughtered] in thine is forbidden,24 so is thine [slaughtered] in mine forbidden. If so, just as thine in mine is punished by kareth,25 so is mine in thine punished by kareth? — Scripture saith, and he hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting, to offer it as a sacrifice unto the Lord . . . then he shall be cut off:26 for a sacrifice [slaughtered without ] there is punishment of kareth, but not for hullin slaughtered in the Temple Court. [That being so,] it [the analogy] may be refuted: as for mine in thine [being forbidden], that is because it is punished by kareth! — But, said Abaye, [it is deduced] from this: and he shall kill it [at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation],27 and he shall kill it [before the tabernacle of the congregation],28 and, and he shall kill it [before the tabernacle of the congregation],29 are three superfluous verses.30 Now, why are they stated? Because it is said: If the place [which the Lord thy God shall choose to put his name there] shall be far from thee . . . then thou shalt kill [of thy herd etc.],31 [teaching] you may kill far from the place [sc. the Temple], but not in the place, thus excluding hullin, [viz.,] that it may not be killed in the Temple Court. Again, I know this only of unblemished animals, which are eligible to be sacrificed: whence do I know to include blemished ones? I include blemished animals, since they are of a fit species.32 Whence do I know to include beasts?33 I include beasts, since they require shechitah,34 as a [domestic] animal,35 How do I know to include birds?36 Therefore it is stated, and he shall kill it, and he shall kill it, and he shall kill it.37 I might think, One may not kill [hullin in the Temple Court]; yet if he does, it is permitted [to eat it]: therefore it is stated: If the place be far from thee, then thou shalt kill . . . and thou shalt eat: you may eat what you kill far from the place, but not what you kill in the place, thus excluding hullin killed in the Temple Court.38 Now, I know this only of unblemished animals, eat it, ignorant of its nature. holiness itself, which teaches that his sanctity is nontransferable. — Actually, the word as written (ase) might read kodesh, but according to tradition (masorah) it is read kadosh. authority of R. Simeon (i.e., b. Yohai). the altar, which is absent if it is not killed in the Temple. The prohibition, dating from while it is alive, is naturally of benefit in general. by the Tabernacle, but not others. offered: (i) that it excludes blemished animals; or (ii) that it teaches that these may not be eaten if killed within the Temple. — Hence, when the Baraitha states: I include blemished animals because . . . beasts because . . . the meaning is that these might be deduced by analogy, but for the three verses quoted.