Kiddushin, Daf Nun Vav, Part 5

 

Introduction

Today s section deals with the ox condemned to be stoned for having killed a person. The mishnah taught that one cannot use such an ox to betroth a woman. [I really would love to imagine someone trying to actually do this].

 

שור הנסקל מנין דתניא ממשמע שנאמר (שמות כא, כח) סקול יסקל השור איני יודע שנבילה היא ונבילה אסורה באכילה מה ת"ל לא יאכל את בשרו מגיד לך שאם שחטו לאחר שנגמר דינו אסור באכילה

 

[With] an ox condemned to be stoned. How do we know this? As it was taught: From that which the verse said, the ox shall be surely stoned, (Exodus 21:28) do I not know that it is nevelah (improperly slaughtered meat), and a nevelah is forbidden as food? Why then does Scripture say, and its flesh shall not be eaten ? To teach you that if it was killed after the trial was ended, it may not be eaten.

 

The verse states that the flesh of the stoned ox may not be eaten. But this is obvious an animal stoned to death has not been properly slaughtered and therefore it clearly cannot be eaten. So what do we learn from the words its flesh shall not be eaten ? That even if it was slaughtered properly after its trial was over, the flesh may not be eaten.

 

בהנאה מנין ת"ל (שמות כא, כח) ובעל השור נקי

מאי משמע שמעון בן זומא אומר כאדם שאומר לחבירו יצא פלוני נקי מנכסיו ואין לו בהם הנאה של כלום

 

How do we know that it is forbidden to derive benefit from it? Scripture says, and the owner of the ox shall be clear (Exodus 21:28).

How does this mean that?

Shimon b. Zoma said: As a man says to his friend, So-and-so has gone out clear from his property, and has no benefit whatsoever from it.

 

The earlier verse only stated that the flesh may not be eaten. How do we know that one may not derive benefit from the flesh by selling it to non-Jews or feeding it to dogs, actions generally permitted when it comes to nevelah?

The Talmud reads this from the word naki which I have translated here as clear. The simple meaning of this word is that the owner of the ox is not guilty. But this, to the rabbis, is obvious. How could we possibly consider the owner to be guilty of murder when it was his ox that did the deed? Therefore, the rabbis read the word as clear from his property. He does not even retain the value of the ox carcass.

 

ממאי דהאי לא יאכל את בשרו להיכא דשחיט לאחר שנגמר דינו הוא דאתא דילמא היכא דשחיט לאחר שנגמר דינו שרי והא לא יאכל היכא דסקליה מיסקל הוא דאתא וכדר’ אבהו א"ר אלעזר דא"ר אבהו א"ר אלעזר כל מקום שנאמר לא יאכל לא תאכל ולא תאכלו אחד איסור אכילה ואחד איסור הנאה עד שיפרט לך הכתוב כדרך שפרט לך בנבילה

 

Now, how do you know that this [verse], and his flesh shall not be eaten, refers to a case where it was slaughtered after the trial ended: perhaps when it is slaughtered after the trial, it is permitted, and this [verse], and it shall not be eaten, refers to when it is indeed stoned, and it is like that which R. Abahu said in the name of R. Elazar. For R. Abahu said in the name of R. Elazar: Wherever it is said: It shall not be eaten, you shall not eat you (pl.) shall not eat, it refers both to a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of deriving benefit, unless the verse expressly states [otherwise], as it does in the case of nevelah!

 

The Talmud suggests that we need not interpret the verses in this way. We could say that the verses prohibit deriving benefit from the ox only when it is stoned and that the extra it shall not be eaten comes to teach that it is prohibited even to derive benefit from the ox s flesh. The verse that says that it is stoned would not be enough to know that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. The ox s flesh would then be permitted if it was ritually slaughtered after its trial was concluded.

 

הני מילי היכא דנפקא לן איסור אכילה מלא יאכל הכא איסור אכילה מסקול יסקל נפקא דאי ס"ד לאיסור הנאה הוא דכתיב נכתוב קרא לא יהנה אי נמי לא יאכל את בשרו למה לי אע"ג דשחטיה כעין בשר אסור

 

That is only where the prohibition of food is derived from, it shall not be eaten ; but here the prohibition of eating follows from, It shall surely be stoned : for should you think that it is written to prohibit deriving benefit, the verse should have said, and he shall not benefit or, it shall not be eaten : Why do I need its flesh ? [To teach that] even if it is slaughtered like [other] flesh, it is [still] forbidden.

 

The Talmud explains that if the words it shall not be eaten were the only clue we had that it should be prohibited to eat something, we would indeed say that they teach that it is prohibited to derive benefit. But in this case we know we can t eat the stoned ox because it is nevelah (improperly slaughtered meat). Furthermore, this case is different from others because the verse says its flesh shall not be eaten. The extra word flesh intimates that its flesh is prohibited even if the animal was properly slaughtered and not stoned.