Kiddushin, Daf Nun Zayin, Part 2

 

Introduction

The Talmud continues to discuss when the leper s birds become prohibited. To recall, R. Yohanan said from the time the bird is slaughtered, whereas Resh Lakish said they are prohibited already when they are set aside.

 

איתיביה ר’ יוחנן לריש לקיש (דברים יד, יא) כל צפור טהורה תאכלו לרבות את המשולחת וזה אשר לא תאכלו מהם לרבות את השחוטה

ואי ס"ד מחיים אסורה לאחר שחיטה מיבעיא

 

R. Yohanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish: All clean birds you may eat (Deuteronomy 14:11): this includes the bird that is set free.

But these are they of which you may not eat this includes the slaughtered bird.

But should you think that it is forbidden while yet alive, is it necessary [to state it] after slaughter?

 

The baraita teaches that the bird that is slaughtered cannot be eaten but that the bird that is set free can be eaten. But if the birds becomes prohibited when they are taken, why would this baraita need to teach that it is prohibited after it was slaughtered?

 

מהו דתימא מידי דהוה אקדשים דמחיים אסירי ואתיא שחיטה ומכשרה להו קמ"ל

 

What might you have said: It is like sacrifices, which are forbidden while alive, yet the slaughtering comes and permits them [as food]; therefore it teaches us [that they are prohibited].

 

We needed this baraita to teach us that even after slaughtered, one may not eat the bird. Otherwise we might have thought that this bird is like a sacrifice and permitted after it was slaughtered. But Resh Lakish can still hold that it is forbidden to derive benefit from the birds from the time they are taken.

 

איתיביה שחטה ונמצאת טריפה יקח זוג לשניה והראשונה מותרת בהנאה

ואי ס"ד מחיים אסורה הראשונה אמאי מותרת בהנאה

 

He raised an objection: If it is slaughtered and found to be trefa, he must take a companion for the second, and it is permitted to derive benefit from the first.

But should you think that it is forbidden while yet alive, why may one benefit from the first!

 

The bird slaughtered is found to be a trefa, an animal with a fatal flaw, and therefore a new bird must be brought. The baraita teaches that another bird must be found to be sacrificed and be a partner for the remaining bird. But one may derive benefit from the bird found to be a trefa. This seems to prove that this bird was not prohibited already from the time it was set aside. Otherwise it would stay prohibited.

 

א"ל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנמצאת טריפה בבני מעיה דלא חל עלה קדושה כלל

 

He said to him: What are we dealing with here? When it was found to be trefa in its inwards, so that no sanctity fell upon it at all.

 

Resh Lakish explains that the baraita refers to a case where the bird was found to be flawed inside. This means that the bird was never holy and therefore it can be used after.

 

איתיביה שחטה שלא באזוב ושלא בעץ ארז ושלא בשני תולעת ר’ יעקב אומר הואיל והוקצה למצותה אסורה רבי שמעון אומר הואיל ונשחטה שלא כמצותה מותרת

עד כאן לא פליגי אלא מר סבר שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה ומר סבר שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה דכולי עלמא מיהא מחיים לא מיתסרא

 

He raised an objection: If it is slaughtered without the hyssop, the cedar wood and the scarlet thread: R. Ya akov said: Since it was set aside for its mitzvah it is forbidden; R. Shimon said: Since it was not slaughtered according to its mitzvah, it is permitted.

Now, they differ only in that one Master holds that an unfit slaughtering is still called slaughtering; while the other Master holds that an unfit slaughtering is not called slaughtering; but all agree at least that it is not forbidden while yet alive?

 

With the bird sacrifice, one must bring hyssop, cedar wood and scarlet thread. If one slaughtered the bird without these things, the rabbis disagree with regard to whether the slaughtering is considered slaughtering such that one may not derive benefit from the bird. But what is clear is that both R. Ya akov and R. Shimon agree that the bird is not prohibited until it is slaughtered.

 

תנאי היא דתנא דבי ר’ ישמעאל נאמר מכשיר ומכפר מבפנים ונאמר מכשיר ומכפר בחוץ מה מכשיר ומכפר האמור בפנים עשה בו מכשיר כמכפר אף מכשיר ומכפר האמור בחוץ עשה בו מכשיר כמכפר

This is a dispute between tannaim. For the School of Ishmael taught: Enabling and atoning are mentioned within [the Temple], and enabling and atoning are mentioned outside the Temple: just as with the Enabling and atoning mentioned outside the Temple, Enabling is made equivalent to atoning, so with the enabling and atoning mentioned outside the Temple, enabling is made equivalent to atoning.

 

Resh Lakish admits that the baraita R. Yohanan used against him does not accord with him. But he cites another baraita that does. This baraita again makes enabling and atoning equivalent both in and out of the Temple. Inside the Temple, the leper s guilt offering is like all guilt offerings. So too outside the Temple, the leper s bird offering is like heifer whose neck is broken both become prohibited while still alive.