קידושין דף נז ע"א

He does not expound es, as it was taught: Shimon HaAmsoni, and some say Nechemyah HaAmsoni, would expound every es in the Torah; when he reached (Devarim 6:13) Hashem your G‑d you shall fear, he withdrew.^[1]

את לא דריש - as including something more.

כי האי תנא - who withdrew from expounding them.

היה דורש כל אתין שבתורה - as including something more.

פירש - for it would include something, making it equal to the fear of the Omnipresent.

His students said to him: Rebbi, all the es-es that you expounded — what will become of them?

He said to them: Just as I received reward for the expounding, so I received reward for the withdrawing.

Until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: Hashem your G‑d you shall fear — to include Torah scholars.

With an eglah arufah:^[2]

From where do we know?

The school of Rabbi Yannai said: atonement is written of it, as with kodashim.

כפרה כתיב בה - atone for Your people Israel (Devarim 21:8).

כקדשים - and kodashim are forbidden in benefit, since one commits me'ilah with them. (And we do not object: if it is like kodashim, then etc., for one does not refute a comparison.)

Birds of the metzora:

צפורי מצורע - they are a preparing outside, for their mitzvah is done outside the city, to make the metzora fit to enter the camp.

From where do we know?

As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: it says a preparing and an atoning inside, and it says a preparing and an atoning outside; just as with the preparing and atoning said of inside it made the preparing like the atoning, so too with the preparing and atoning said of outside it made the preparing like the atoning.^[3]

מכשיר בפנים - the asham of the metzora.

מכפר בפנים - all the offerings.

מכפר בחוץ - the eglah arufah.

מה בפנים עשה מכשיר כמכפר - it made no distinction between the asham of the metzora and other ashamos.

It was said: The birds of the metzora — from when are they forbidden? Rabbi Yochanan said: from the time of slaughtering; and Reish Lakish said: from the time of taking.

משעת שחיטה - the slaughtered one becomes forbidden, and the sent-away one is permitted, as explained below.

משעת לקיחה - both become forbidden, until he sends away the one to be sent, and it becomes permitted by being sent away.

Rabbi Yochanan said from the time of slaughtering — it is the slaughtering that forbids it;

Reish Lakish said from the time of taking — it is derived from the eglah arufah: just as the eglah arufah is forbidden while alive, so too the birds of the metzora are forbidden while alive.

מעגלה ערופה - just as there it becomes forbidden while alive, like kodashim, so too here, while alive.

And the eglah arufah itself — from when?

ה"ג ועגלה ערופה מאימתי אמר רבי ינאי כו' - from when does it become forbidden — since its value is not consecrated, neither with the holiness of the altar nor with the holiness of the Temple upkeep, but it itself is for breaking the neck?

Rabbi Yannai said: I heard a boundary for it and forgot it, and the colleagues took up saying: its going down to the rough valley forbids it.

גבול שמעתי בה ושכחתי - from when it becomes forbidden.

ירידתה לנחל איתן - it is what gives it the name of eglah arufah and forbids it.

Then just as the eglah arufah does not become forbidden from the time of taking, so too the birds of the metzora should not become forbidden from the time of taking!

How can you compare? There it has another boundary; here, does it have another boundary?

הכא מי אית לה גבול אחרינא - and since we learn for it a prohibition while alive, perforce it is the taking that causes it.

Rabbi Yochanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish: (Devarim 14:11) Every pure bird you may eat — to include the sent-away one; and this is what you shall not eat of them — to include the slaughtered one;

כל - it is an inclusion.

אשר - it is an inclusion.

and if you think it is forbidden while alive, is it needed after slaughtering?

לאחר שחיטה מיבעיא - and why do I need a verse to forbid it? Granted, a verse is needed to permit the sent-away one; but the prohibition of the slaughtered one — why do I need it?

You might have said: just as with kodashim, which are forbidden while alive and slaughtering comes and makes them fit —

ואתיא שחיטה ומכשרה לה - together with the other services; and this one too will become fit once its mitzvah is complete.

it teaches us otherwise.

He raised an objection: If he slaughtered it and it was found to be treifah — he takes a mate for the second, and the first is permitted in benefit.

טריפה - it is unfit for the purification of the metzora, as it is written living (Vayikra 14:4).

ונמצאת טריפה - it is now assumed that when he examined the signs he found it had become treifah in its slaughtering; for had it become treifah from the start, such as the membrane of the brain being pierced or its legs being cut, it would not fit to teach and was found.

יקח זוג לשניה - he need not bring two others.

והראשונה מותרת בהנאה - for it is now assumed that it is the slaughtering that forbids it, and this is not a slaughtering.

And if you think it is forbidden while alive, why is the first permitted in benefit?

אמאי מותרת בהנאה - perhaps at the time of taking it was fit; and where did its prohibition go?

He said to him: With what are we dealing here? Where it was found to be treifah in its innards, so that no holiness at all took effect on it.

שנמצאת טריפה בבני מעים - for at the time of taking it was not fit, and no prohibition took effect on it.

He raised an objection: If he slaughtered it without hyssop, without cedar wood and without crimson wool — Rabbi Yaakov says: since it was set aside for its mitzvah, it is forbidden; Rabbi Shimon says: since it was slaughtered not according to its mitzvah, it is permitted.

They disagree only in this: one master holds an unfit slaughtering is called slaughtering, and the other holds an unfit slaughtering is not called slaughtering;

ר' יעקב סבר שחיטה שאינה ראויה - for its mitzvah — it is called slaughtering, to forbid it.

but all agree that while alive it is not forbidden!

מחיים לא מיתסרא - for if it became forbidden, how would its prohibition lapse?

It is a dispute of Tannaim, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: it says a preparing and an atoning inside, and it says a preparing and an atoning outside; just as with the preparing and atoning said of inside it made the preparing like the atoning, so too with the preparing and atoning said of outside it made the preparing like the atoning.

תנאי היא - these Tannaim hold as you said, that it does not become forbidden; and the Tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who learns the preparing from the atoning, holds that it becomes forbidden while alive, like the atoning.

The matter itself: Every pure bird you may eat — to include the sent-away one; and this is what you shall not eat of them — to include the slaughtered one.

Let me reverse it!

ואיפוך אנא - and this is what you shall not eat — to include the sent-away one.

Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai: We have not found living creatures that are forbidden.

לא מצינו בעלי חיים שאסורין - with a permanent prohibition.

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak objected: But is there not^[4]

Tosafos

כפרה כתיב בה כקדשים - As it is written (Devarim 21:8) atone for Your people Israel, and kodashim are forbidden in benefit, since one commits me'ilah with them. It is astonishing, for in Kerisus (Kerisus 6a) it derives it from and they shall break its neck there — there shall be its burial! One can answer that both are needed: had it been only because of atonement, I would have said it is forbidden in benefit only while alive, like kodashim, but after the neck is broken it is permitted, since its mitzvah has been done — therefore and they shall break its neck there was needed; and had it been only from and they shall break its neck there, I would have said it is forbidden in benefit only after the neck is broken, but not while alive — therefore atonement was needed. Alternatively one can say: what it says here, atonement is written of it, is not the main exposition, for it is needed for another exposition, as we say in the first perek of Chullin (Chullin 11a): perhaps it is treifah — and if you say, what difference does it make to us? Atonement is written of it, as with kodashim. Rather, the main exposition here is from and they shall break its neck there.

משעת שחיטה - Explanation: and the sent-away one too will be forbidden from the slaughtering of its fellow until the sending; and one cannot explain: from the time of slaughtering, for the slaughtered one, and for the sent-away one there is no prohibition at all — for it teaches birds of the metzora, which implies both.

מי אית ליה גבול אחרינא - For one cannot say the bringing of the birds is like the bringing down of the eglah arufah, for the bringing down of the eglah arufah is written in the passage (Devarim 21:4) and the elders of that city shall bring down the calf, but the bringing of the birds is not written; but the taking is written, as it is written (Vayikra 14:4) and he shall take for the one being purified.

וזה אשר לא תאכלו לרבות השחוטה - And if you will say: according to this Tanna, from where does he have the prohibition of benefit, according to Chizkiyah, who said you shall not eat does not imply a prohibition of benefit? One can answer that they learn the prohibition of the sent-away one from the slaughtered one: just as the slaughtered one is forbidden, so too the sent-away one is forbidden; and the prohibition of the sent-away one is of benefit, for while alive eating does not apply.

שחטה ונמצאת טריפה - Rashi explains: it is now assumed that when he examined the signs he found it had become treifah in the slaughtering, such as the esophagus being pierced; for had it become treifah from the start, such as the membrane being pierced or its legs being cut, it would not fit to teach was found. And that is what the Gemara says: why is it permitted in benefit — that is, where did its prohibition go? And it answers: it was found treifah in its innards, and it did not happen at the time of slaughtering but before the slaughtering; and that is why it establishes it with treifos of the innards, for had it established it with external treifos from before the slaughtering, it would not have called it was found, but one who slaughters a treifah; but with treifos of the innards, was found fits well, since it is not visible. And it is difficult: even when it is found treifah with the small intestines pierced — perhaps the treifah came after the taking, and if so, why is it permitted? Let it be forbidden out of doubt! Therefore it seems: at first it assumes one slaughtered it and it was found treifah, such as the small intestines being pierced, and it asks: why is it permitted? Perhaps it was after the taking. And it answers: it was found treifah in its innards, such as the liver being missing, or another treifah which certainly was from birth.

תנאי היא נאמר מכשיר כו' אף מכשיר האמור בחוץ עשה בו מכשיר כמכפר - Rashi explains: the preparing is the birds of the metzora, and the atoning is the eglah arufah. It is astonishing, for here it implies that we learn that the birds are forbidden in benefit from the eglah arufah, and in Kerisus (Kerisus 25a) it implies that we learn the eglah arufah from the birds! One can answer that at first one must learn the birds from the eglah arufah: just as the eglah arufah is forbidden at least from the breaking of the neck, so too the sent-away bird is forbidden with at least the prohibition that applies to it — and that is perforce while alive, before it is sent away; and since we found a prohibition while alive in the sent-away one, then there it rightly learns the eglah arufah, which becomes forbidden while alive, from the sent-away bird; and afterwards we learn that the slaughtered bird becomes forbidden even while alive, that is, from the time of taking, from the eglah arufah.

Notes

1. 1. Continues from [Kiddushin 56b], on the exposition of the word es in the Torah.
2. 2. The Mishnah (56b) lists things forbidden in benefit, with which one who betroths does not betroth; the Gemara clarifies the source of each prohibition.
3. 3. Preparing (machshir) — an offering that permits its owner to enter the Mikdash, like the asham of the metzora; atoning (mechaper) — an offering that atones for a sin.
4. 4. The passage continues on [Kiddushin 57b].