Kiddushin, Daf Nun Vav, Part 6

 

Introduction

The Talmud continues to discuss the prohibition of using the carcass of the stoned ox.

 

מתקיף לה מר זוטרא ואימא ה"מ היכא דבדק צור ושחט בה דמיחזי כסקילה אבל שחטיה בסכין לא

 

Mar Zutra objected: Yet perhaps that is only if one examines a stone, [finds its edge perfectly free from a notch] and kills it with the stone, for it looks like stoning; but not if it is slaughtered with a knife?

 

Mar Zutra suggests that maybe the Torah prohibits eating the ox only if it is stoned or slaughtered with a sharp stone. This would be almost like the animal was stoned, which is the reference point of the verse. But if the ox is slaughtered with a knife, maybe it should be permitted to eat its flesh.

 

מידי סכין באורייתא כתיב

ועוד תניא בכל שוחטין בין בצור בין בזכוכית בין בקרומית של קנה

 

Is then a knife written in the Torah? Moreover, it was taught: One may slaughter with everything with a stone, glass, or the stalk of a reed.

 

Mar Zutra is rejected. The Torah does not mandate that slaughtering be done with a knife. It can be done with any sharp instrument. Therefore when the baraita says that the flesh is prohibited even if it was slaughtered in a kosher manner would hold true even if slaughtered with a stone.

We should note that in reality, the Torah says nothing about how slaughtering of non-sacrificial animals is supposed to be done. This is an interesting topic, but this is not the place to go into it.

 

והשתא דנפקא לן איסור אכילה ואיסור הנאה תרוייהו מלא יאכל האי בעל השור נקי למאי אתא

להנאת עורו סלקא דעתך אמינא לא יאכל את בשרו כתיב בשרו אסור ועורו מותר

 

But now that the prohibitions of both eating and benefit are derived from, it shall not be eaten, what is the purpose of, and the owner of the ox shall be clear ?

To derive benefit from its hide, lest I would have thought its flesh shall not be eaten is written: [hence] its flesh is forbidden while its hide is permitted.

 

The phrase and the owner shall be clean comes to teach that even parts of the ox that are not its flesh, i.e. its hide, are prohibited to derive benefit from.

 

ולהנך תנאי דמפקי ליה האי בעל השור נקי לחצי כופר ולדמי ולדות הנאת עורו מנא להו מאת בשרו את הטפל לבשרו

 

Now, according to those tannaim who use this verse: and the owner of the ox shall be clear as referring to half ransom and paying for offspring, how do they know [that] the benefit of the hide [is forbidden]? From et besaro (its flesh) meaning that which is joined to its flesh.

 

Some tannaim use the verse and the owner of the ox shall be clear to teach that the owner of the ox does not pay even half damages. And if the ox kills a pregnant woman, the owner does not pay for the miscarriages. Since they use this verse for another purpose, how do they derive the law that the hide is prohibited?

They use the extra word et. This word comes to include the hide.

 

ואידך את לא דריש כדתניא שמעון העמסוני ואמרי לה נחמיה העמסוני היה דורש כל אתין שבתורה כיון שהגיע (דברים ו, יג) לאת ה’ אלהיך תירא פירש אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי כל אתין שדרשת מה תהא עליהם אמר להם כשם שקבלתי שכר על הדרישה כך קבלתי על הפרישה עד שבא רבי עקיבא ולימד את ה’ אלהיך תירא לרבות תלמידי חכמים

 

And the other? He does not interpret et. As it was taught: Shimon Ha amasoni, and others say, Nehemiah Ha amasoni, interpreted every et in the Torah. When he came to, You shall fear [et] the Lord your God, (Deuteronomy 6:13) he refrained.

His students said to him, Master, what is to happen with all the etin which you have interpreted?

He said to them: Just as I received a reward for interpreting [them] so do I receive a reward for refraining. Subsequently R. Akiva came and taught: You shall fear [et] the Lord your God this comes to include the sages.

 

The Talmud now segues into a famous source about doing a midrash on the word et. A sage we never hear about elsewhere is said to have interpreted all of the times this word et appears, until he came to one whose interpretation would seem to be heretical. From that point forward, he stopped making derashot on the word et. R. Akiva, who seems to be his student, or at least his successor, succeeds in coming up with a derashah even for this verse.

We should note that we never find the word et being interpreted in actual tannaitic sources. Tannaim, the sages who operated in the tannaitic period, did not interpret grammatical features of verses such as full spelling and individual letters. It is only in later tradition that rabbis begin to ascribe to the tannaim such interpretive methods. This is a topic I will return to in a forthcoming third volume of Reconstructing the Talmud. So stay tuned.