POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Kidushin 56
KIDUSHIN 56-57 - sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous
donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his
encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him
1) BUYING ANIMALS WITH MA'ASER MONEY
(a) (Mishnah): We may not buy animals with (redemption) money
1. If a person bought unintentionally - the sale is
undone (he gets back his money, the seller gets back
(b) Question (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If he knew that the
money was Ma'aser, she is Mekudeshes.
2. If a person bought intentionally - he must bring the
animal to Yerushalayim and eat it there (as Ma'aser,
i.e. in Taharah).
3. (R. Yehudah): This is when he intended to buy a
Shelamim - but if he intended to spend the money as
Chulin (to buy a Chulin animal), whether or not he
knew that the money was Ma'aser, the sale is undone.
(c) Answer #1 (R. Elazar): A woman knows that Ma'aser money
cannot be profaned by acquiring her - she intends to eat
the money as Ma'aser in Yerushalayim. (So this is as a:2,
not as a:3.)
(d) Question (R. Yirmeyah): But a person knows that Ma'aser
money cannot be profaned by buying a Tamei animal, slaves
1. (Mishnah): One may not buy a Tamei animal, slaves or
land with Ma'aser money, even in Yerushalayim;
(e) Answer #2 (R. Yirmeyah): Most people do not know that
Ma'aser money cannot be profaned by acquiring a wife or a
2. If he did buy, he must set aside money equal to what
he paid and eat it as Ma'aser. (According to R.
Elazar, this should not be needed, for the seller
will eat the money as Ma'aser!)
1. The Mishnah that a woman is Mekudeshes through
Ma'aser money) is the case of a learned woman who
knows the law.
(f) Question (Mishnah): If he did buy, he must set aside
money and eat it as Ma'aser - we should say, the sale is
undone (as in Mishnah (a)!)
(g) Answer (Shmuel): the case is, the seller fled.
(h) Inference: If the seller was around, we would fine him
(i.e. undo the sale).
2) PROPERTY FROM WHICH ONE MAY NOT BENEFIT
(i) Question: It is more reasonable to fine the buyer, and
say that even if the seller is around, the buyer must set
aside money and eat it as Ma'aser!
(j) Answer: A thief would not steal if people would not buy
stolen property (so the buyer deserves to be fined).
(k) Question: If the thief would not steal, people could not
buy from him (so the thief should be fined)!
(l) Answer: They are both culpable; the fined is levied at
the one holding the stolen property.
(a) (Mishnah): A man was Mekadesh with any of the following -
she is not Mekudeshes:
1. Orlah; Kilayim of a vineyard; an ox sentenced to be
killed; a beheaded calf (that atones for a murder);
birds used in the Taharah of a Tzaru'a; the hair of
a Nazir; a firstborn donkey; meat cooked with milk;
Chulin that was slaughtered in the Mikdash.
(b) If he sold any of these and was Mekadesh with the money,
she is Mekudeshes.
(c) (Gemara) Question: From where do we know that Orlah is
forbidden to benefit from?
(d) Answer (Beraisa): "Arelim you will not eat" - this would
imply, one may benefit from Orlah;
1. "You will treat its Orlah as Orlah" - this teaches,
one may not benefit from it, one may not dye with it
or burn a lamp with it.
(e) (Mishnah): Kilayim of a vineyard.
(f) Question: From where do we know that Kilayim is forbidden
to benefit from?
(g) Answer #1 (Chizkiyah): "Lest Tukdash" - we read this,
'Lest Tukad Esh (it will be burned)'.
(h) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): It means, 'Lest it will become
(i) Objection: If so, if it is sold, the prohibition should
transfers to the money (and the Kilayim becomes
permitted), just as Kodesh!
1. Rather, we must learn as Chizkiyah.
(j) (Mishnah): An ox sentenced to be stoned.
(k) Question: From where do we know that is forbidden to
benefit from it?
(l) Answer (Beraisa): "You will stone the ox" - since it is a
Neveilah, it is forbidden to eat it;
1. "You will not eat its meat" teaches, even if it was
slaughtered, it may not be eaten.
(m) Question: Since "It will not be eaten" teaches that one
may not eat or benefit from it - what do we learn from
"The owner is clean"?
2. Question: From where do we know that one may not
benefit from it?
3. Answer (ben Zoma): "The owner is clean" - like
someone that was wiped clean of his money, and gets
no benefit from them.
4. Question: How do we know that "You will not eat its
meat" applies when it was slaughtered?
i. Perhaps when it is slaughtered, it may be
eaten; the verse speaks of when it was stoned,
as R. Avahu!
5. Answer #1: R. Avahu's law only applies when "Do not
eat" taught that it may not be eaten; here, we
already know that it may not be eaten because it
must be stoned (and becomes a Neveilah).
ii. (R. Avahu): Whenever the Torah says "It will
not be eaten" or "Do not eat", this also
forbids getting benefit, unless the Torah
permits benefit, as it did by a Neveilah.
i. If it was coming to forbid benefit - it should
have said, "Do not benefit"(since we already
know it may not be eaten).
6. Answer #2: If it was coming to forbid benefit, it
should have said only, "It will not be eaten";
i. "Its meat" is extra, to teach that it may not
be eaten even if it was slaughtered (as regular
7. Question (Mar Zutra): Granted, we learn that even
when slaughtered, it may not be eaten - but perhaps
that is only if a was slaughtered with a sharp stone
(which is as stoning)!
i. But the verse does not speak about if it was
slaughtered with a knife!
8. Answer: The Torah did not say that slaughter must be
with a knife. (Therefore, slaughter with a stone is
also considered slaughter, not stoning.)
i. (Beraisa): Anything (sharp) may be used to
slaughter - a rock, glass, a reed...
(n) Answer: To forbid benefit from the skin.
1. One might have thought, "Its meat will not be
eaten", but one may benefit from the skin - we hear,
this is not so.
(o) The following Tana'im learn from "The owner is clean"
that (the owner of) a Tam (an unestablished gorer) does
not pay even half ransom (if the animal kills a person),
and that even a Mu'ad does not obligate its master to pay
for fetuses it caused to be aborted;
1. Question: From where do they know that one may not
benefit from the skin?
(p) (Beraisa): R. Shimon ha'Amsoni used to expound every Es
in the Torah (to include something). Regarding "You will
fear Es Hash-m", he found nothing to include.
2. Answer: "(You will not eat) Es its meat" - the word
Es includes what is secondary to the meat, i.e. the
3. The other Tana'im do not expound "Es".
1. His Talmidim: If so, perhaps the other words Es also
should not be expounded!
2. R. Shimon: Indeed, I retract them all! Just as I
will receive reward for what I expounded (a the
time, I believed it was true), I will be rewarded
for refusing to expound.
3. R. Akiva: "You will fear Es Hash-m" - this includes