Traité Kiddushin

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : the cases of an animal set aside as an offering to an idol, and an animal that was itself worshipped as an idol, which are living creatures and yet are permanently forbidden. The Gemara answers: There is a difference, as when they are forbidden, they are forbidden only to be used for the Most High, i.e., to be used as offerings in the Temple service, but it is permitted for a common Jew to derive benefit from them.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rabbi Yirmeya objects to the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan: But an animal that copulated with a woman, and an animal that copulated with a man, in the presence of witnesses, they are living creatures and yet they are permanently forbidden, as the halakha is that these animals are killed, and one is prohibited from deriving benefit from them once they have been sentenced. Rather, the above explanation should be emended to say: Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: We have not found most kosher living creatures that are permanently forbidden while they are still alive, and it can be assumed that the inclusion of the verse is referring to that which is generally forbidden, even if there are exceptions.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara offers another answer to the question of how the baraita knew which bird the verse is permitting. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: “And shall let go the living bird into the open field” (Leviticus 14:7), which indicates that the bird is like a field: Just as a field is permitted, so too, this bird is also permitted. The Gemara asks: Is that word “field” coming to teach this? That word is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The word “field” teaches that one may not stand in Jaffa and throw the bird that is set free to the sea, or stand in Gevat and throw it to the desert, and that he may not stand outside the city and throw it inside the city. Rather, any manner in which he is standing in the city and throws it outside the wall to the field is valid. The word “field” teaches that one must set it free only to the field and nowhere else, not to teach that the bird is permitted.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And the other tanna, the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who derives that one is permitted to derive benefit from the bird based on the word “field,” replies: If so, that this was the only halakha the word is teaching, let the Torah write “field”; what is the significance of “the field”? Conclude two conclusions from it, i.e., both the place to throw the bird and the permission to derive benefit.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava says a different answer to the question of how the baraita knew which bird the verse is permitting: The Torah did not say “let go” for it to serve as a stumbling block. If the bird sent free was forbidden, the Torah would not have commanded him to send it away, since people might eat it unwittingly.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with a nazirite’s hair, she is not betrothed. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a nazirite’s hair? The Gemara answers: As the verse states with regard to a nazirite: “He shall be holy [kadosh], he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long” (Numbers 6:5), which teaches: His hair growth shall be holy.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: If the hair of a nazirite can be compared to consecrated property by use of the term “holy,” then just as with regard to consecrated property, it transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and it becomes desacralized, so too, a nazirite’s hair should transfer its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and the hair itself should become desacralized. This is not the halakha. The Gemara answers: Do we read holy [kodesh] in this verse, which is the term the verse uses for a consecrated item (see Leviticus 22:14)? We read “holy [kadosh].” Since a different conjugation of the term is used, the halakhot of the hair of a nazirite are not derived from those of consecrated property.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with a firstborn donkey, she is not betrothed. The Gemara suggests: Shall we say the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a firstborn donkey, deriving benefit from it is prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon permits it. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The mishna can be referring to one who betrothed a woman with a firstborn donkey after it has had its neck broken, and everyone agrees that it is prohibited to derive benefit from the donkey once its neck is broken.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with meat cooked in milk, she is not betrothed. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from meat cooked in milk? The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The Torah states three times: “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21). One verse serves to teach the prohibition against eating meat cooked in milk, and one verse serves to teach the prohibition against deriving benefit from meat cooked in milk, and one verse serves to teach the prohibition against cooking meat in milk.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says: It is prohibited to eat meat cooked in milk but one is permitted to derive benefit from it, as it is stated: “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God. You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Deuteronomy 14:21), and it states there with regard to the prohibition of an unslaughtered animal carcass: “And you shall be holy men to Me” (Exodus 22:30). Since both verses employ the term “holy” he derives: Just as there, in the case of an animal carcass, it is prohibited to eat it but one is permitted to derive benefit from it, as the Torah explicitly states that it may be sold to a gentile, so too here, with regard to meat cooked in milk, it is prohibited to eat it but one is permitted to derive benefit from it.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman with the items it enumerated, or with non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, she is not betrothed. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, i.e., that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: The Torah said: Slaughter for Me, i.e., for offerings to God, in My place, inside the Temple courtyard, and your non-sacred animals that are intended for eating should be slaughtered in your place, outside the Temple courtyard. Just as one is prohibited from deriving benefit from My consecrated animals if they were slaughtered in your place, as one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a consecrated animal slaughtered outside the Temple, so too, one is prohibited from deriving benefit from your non-sacred animals if they were slaughtered in My place.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: If so, just as the act of slaughtering My consecrated animals in your place is punishable by karet, so too, to the act of slaughtering your non-sacred animals in My place should be punishable by karet. To counter this logic, the verse states: “If a man from the house of Israel slaughters an ox or lamb…and has not brought it to the door of the Tent of Meeting to sacrifice an offering to the Lord…and that man shall be cut off” (Leviticus 17:3–4). This teaches that it is only for an offering that one slaughtered outside the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle, or the Temple courtyard, that he is punishable with karet, but for non-sacred animals that one slaughtered in the Temple courtyard he is not punishable with karet.