הראוים ליקרב מנין לרבות בעלי מומין מרבה אני בעלי מומין שכן מין המכשיר ומנין לרבות את החיה מרבה אני את החיה שהיא בשחיטה כבהמה מנין לרבות את העופות ת"ל ושחטו ושחט אותו ושחט אותו
which are fit to be sacrificed. From where do I know to include blemished animals in this prohibition? I include blemished animals since they are at least of the type that is fit to be sacrificed. And from where do I know to include the undomesticated animal in this prohibition? I include the undomesticated animal since it is rendered fit for consumption by means of slaughtering, like a domesticated animal. From where do I know to include birds, as the Torah does not mention slaughter with regard to birds, in this prohibition? The verse states: “And he slaughters it,” “and he shall slaughter it,” as well as “and he shall slaughter it,” employing the addition term “it” each time. These three verses teach that one may not eat from a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard
יכול לא ישחוט ואם שחט ישליכנו לפני כלבים תלמוד לומר (שמות כב, ל) לכלב תשליכון אותו אותו אתה משליך לכלב ואי אתה משליך חולין שנשחטו בעזרה
The baraita continues: One might have thought that he may not slaughter a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard ab initio, but if he did slaughter it, he may cast it before the dogs, i.e., derive benefit from it. The verse states: “Therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs” (Exodus 22:30), which teaches that although one is prohibited from eating the meat of a tereifa, one may derive benefit from it. The word “it” serves to emphasize and exclude: You may cast it, i.e., a tereifa, to the dogs, but you may not cast non-sacred animals that have been slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, as it is prohibited to derive any benefit from them.
אשכחינהו מר יהודה לרב יוסף ולרב שמואל בריה דרבה בר בר חנה דהוו קיימי אפיתחא דבי רבה אמר להו תניא המקדש בפטר חמור בבשר בחלב ובחולין שנשחטו בעזרה ר' שמעון אומר מקודשת וחכ"א אינה מקודשת אלמא חולין שנשחטו בעזרה לר' שמעון לאו דאורייתא
The Gemara relates: Mar Yehuda found Rav Yosef and Rav Shmuel, son of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, standing at the entrance of Rabba’s study hall. He said to them: It is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who betroths a woman with a firstborn donkey, with meat cooked in milk, or with non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, Rabbi Shimon says she is betrothed, and the Rabbis say she is not betrothed. Apparently, according to Rabbi Shimon, the prohibition against deriving benefit from non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is not by Torah law, which is why the betrothal takes effect.
ורמינהו ר"ש אומר חולין שנשחטו בעזרה ישרפו וכן חיה שנשחטה בעזרה אישתיקו
And Mar Yehuda raises a contradiction against this inference from a different baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Non-sacred, domesticated, animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard must be burned, as well as a non-sacred undomesticated animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. This indicates that it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. They were silent and had no answer.
אתו לקמיה דרבה אמר להו פלגא אוקמינכי הב"ע כגון שנשחטה ונמצאת טריפה ור"ש לטעמיה
They came before Rabba and told him about this difficulty. He said to them: A quarrelsome person has put you up to asking this question. With what are we dealing here in the first baraita? We are dealing with a case where it was slaughtered and found to be a tereifa, and Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning that an act of slaughter which does not render the animal permitted to be eaten is not called slaughter, so the animal does not have the status of a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.
דתניא השוחט את הטריפה וכן השוחט ונמצאת טריפה זה וזה חולין בעזרה ר"ש מתיר בהנאה וחכמים אוסרים
As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ḥullin 2:4): With regard to one who slaughters a known tereifa, as well as one who slaughters an animal and it was found to be a tereifa, and this and that were non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, Rabbi Shimon permits one to derive benefit from them, as explained previously. And the Rabbis prohibit one from deriving benefit from them, since they do not distinguish between an act of slaughter that does render the animal permitted to be eaten and one that does not. It is only in a case where the man betrothed her with a tereifa that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard that Rabbi Shimon says she is betrothed, but not when the animal was not a tereifa.
מכרן וקידש בדמיהן מקודשת מנלן מדגלי רחמנא בעבודת כוכבים (דברים ז, כו) והיית חרם כמוהו כל שאתה מהייה הימנה הרי הוא כמוהו מכלל דכל איסורים שבתורה שרו
§ The mishna teaches that if one sold any of the items from which one is prohibited to derive benefit and betrothed a woman with the money received from their sale, she is betrothed. With regard to the possibility of deriving benefit from money received in exchange for items from which benefit is forbidden, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive that this is permitted? The Gemara answers: It is from the fact that the Merciful One reveals in the Torah with regard to an object of idol worship: “And you shall be banned like it” (Deuteronomy 7:26), which teaches that anything that you cause to come from it, i.e., in exchange for it, is like it. It can be understood by inference that with regard to all the other prohibitions of the Torah, monies received for items from which benefit is forbidden are permitted.
ונילף מינה משום דהוה עבודת כוכבים ושביעית שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין
The Gemara suggests: But let us derive a general principle concerning other prohibitions from the case of idolatry. The Gemara answers: This derivation is not applied, because an object of idol worship and produce of the Sabbatical Year are two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter, since both prohibitions also extend to the money obtained for them, and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases.
עבודת כוכבים הא דאמרן שביעית מאי היא (ויקרא כה, יב) יובל היא קודש תהיה לכם מה קודש תופס את דמיו אף שביעית תופסת דמיה
The Gemara clarifies: The source indicating that this is true of an object of idol worship is what we said. What is the source indicating that this halakha applies to produce of the Sabbatical Year? The verse states: “It is a Jubilee, it shall be holy to you” (Leviticus 25:12), from which it is derived: Just as consecrated property transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed, so too, produce of the Sabbatical Year, which has the same status as the Jubilee Year, transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed. Consequently, money used to acquire the produce of the Sabbatical Year will be subject to the same halakhot as the produce itself.
אי מה קודש תופס את דמיו ויוצא לחולין אף שביעית תופסת דמיה ויוצאה לחולין תלמוד לומר תהיה בהוייתה תהא
If so, one could also say that just as with consecrated property, it transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and becomes desacralized, so too, produce of the Sabbatical Year should transfer its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed and becomes desacralized. Nevertheless, the verse states: “Shall be,” meaning: As it is, so it shall be, indicating that the Sabbatical-Year produce does not become desacralized.
כיצד לקח בפירות שביעית בשר אלו ואלו מתבערים בשביעית בבשר דגים יצא בשר נכנסו דגים בדגים יין יצאו דגים נכנס יין ביין שמן יצא יין נכנס שמן הא כיצד אחרון אחרון נתפס בשביעית ופירי עצמו אסור
The Gemara explains: How so? If one purchased meat with produce of the Sabbatical Year, both these and those, i.e., the meat and the produce, are disposed of in the Sabbatical Year. The sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect with regard to the meat as well. It is treated like the produce, and must be disposed of when the obligation to dispose of the Sabbatical-Year produce goes into effect. If he then purchases fish with this meat, the meat loses its consecrated status, and the fish assumes the consecrated state. If he then purchases wine with these fish, the fish loses its consecrated status and the wine assumes the consecrated state. If he then purchases oil with the wine, the wine loses has its consecrated status and the oil assumes the consecrated state. How so? The final item purchased has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year transferred to it, and the Sabbatical-Year produce itself remains forbidden.
הניחא למאן דאמר אין מלמדין אלא למאן דאמר מלמדין מאי איכא למימר מיעוטי כתיבי כתיב הכא (דברים ז, כו) כי חרם הוא וכתיב התם (ויקרא כה, יא) יובל היא היא אין מידי אחרינא לא
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases. But according to the one who says that they do teach their common aspect to apply to other cases, what can be said? Why is it not learned from these examples that money received from the sale of an item from which benefit is forbidden, is likewise forbidden? The Gemara answers: Expressions of restriction are written in both cases. Here, with regard to idol worship, it is written: “For it is banned” (Deuteronomy 7:26), which indicates only that it is banned, i.e., has its prohibition extend to money received from its sale, while other prohibited items are not. And there, with regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year, it is written: “It is a Jubilee” (Leviticus 25:12), which teaches that with regard to “it,” yes, this halakha applies; but this halakha does not apply to anything else.
מתני׳ המקדש בתרומות ובמעשרות ובמתנות ובמי חטאת ובאפר חטאת הרי זו מקודשת ואפילו ישראל
MISHNA: With regard to one who betroths a woman with terumot, or with tithes, or with the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach of an animal, which are given as gifts to priests, or with the water of purification, which is sprinkled on an impure person during the purification rite for impurity imparted by a corpse, or with the ashes of purification, which were mixed with the water sprinkled on an impure person during the purification rite for impurity imparted by a corpse, in all of these cases she is betrothed, and this is so even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite, not a priest or a Levite.
גמ׳ אמר עולא טובת הנאה אינה ממון איתיביה רבי אבא לעולא המקדש בתרומות ובמעשרות ובמתנות במי חטאת ובאפר פרה הרי זו מקודשת ואפילו ישראל
GEMARA: Ulla says: The benefit of discretion, i.e., the benefit accrued from the option of giving teruma and tithes to whichever priest or Levite one chooses, does not have monetary value. Rabbi Abba raised an objection to Ulla from the mishna: With regard to one who betroths a woman with terumot, or with tithes, or with gifts, with the water of purification, or with the ashes of the red heifer, she is betrothed, and this is so even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite. This indicates that although an Israelite cannot consume the priestly gifts, he may nevertheless betroth a woman with them, since he possesses the option to give them to the priest or Levite of his choice. That benefit has monetary value, and it is that value that he uses to betroth a woman, who can then give them to whichever priest or Levite she chooses.
א"ל הכא בישראל שנפלו לו טבלים מבית אבי אמו כהן וקא סבר מתנות שלא הורמו כמי שהורמו דמיין
Ulla said to him: You have misunderstood the case of the mishna, since here the case is with an Israelite who came into possession of untithed produce as an inheritance from the household of his mother’s father, who was a priest, and the tanna of the mishna holds that gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated. The untithed produce is not viewed as one entity, but rather is viewed as a mixture of regular produce, teruma, and tithes. This teruma belonged to his grandfather, who was a priest. Since he has inherited this teruma, he has ownership rights to it in addition to the benefit of discretion. While he cannot consume this produce because he is an Israelite, he can sell it to a priest and keep the money. Since it has actual value, it can be used to betroth a woman.
בעא מיניה ר' חייא בר אבין מרב הונא טובת הנאה ממון או אינה ממון אמר ליה תניתוה המקדש בתרומות ובמעשרות ובמתנות במי חטאת ובאפר פרה הרי זו מקודשת ואפילו ישראל א"ל ולאו אוקימנא בישראל שנפלו לו טבלים מבית אבי אמו כהן
With regard to this issue, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin inquired of Rav Huna: Does the benefit of discretion have monetary value, or does it not have monetary value? Rav Huna said to him: You learned it in the mishna: With regard to one who betroths a woman with terumot, or with tithes, or with gifts, or with the water of purification, or with the ashes of the red heifer, she is betrothed, and this is so even if the man betrothing her is an Israelite. This indicates that the benefit of discretion has monetary value. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: But didn’t we establish it, in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as referring to an Israelite who came into possession of untithed produce as an inheritance from the household of his mother’s father, who was a priest?