usufruct

273 occurrences across the corpus

The Jerusalem Talmud

MISHNAH: If he wrote in the name of an inappropriate government, in the name of the government of Media or the government of Greece, from the construction of the Temple or the destruction of the Temple; if he was in the West and wrote “in the East” or in the East and wrote “in the West”, she needs a bill of divorce from both of them, she has neither ketubah nor usufruct nor used clothing from either of them, and if she took anything she must return it. Any child from either of the men is a bastard; neither of them may defile himself for her. Neither man has any claim on what she finds or earns, or on invalidation of her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israel, she is disabled from priesthood, the daughter of a Levite from tithe, the daughter of a Cohen from heave. The heirs of neither man inherit her ketubah. If they died, the brothers of both of them perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate. If he changed his or her name or the name of his or her city she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her. Referring to all the close relatives about whom they said that their co-wives are permitted, if any of the co-wives went and married otherwise but the relatives turned out to be she-rams, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the aforementioned consequences apply to her.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 9:33

HALAKHAH: “That is how the punctilious in Jerusalem used to write. A forced bill of divorce among Jews is valid, from Gentiles it is invalid”. Samuel said, it is invalid and disqualifies from the priesthood. Samuel said, one does not force, only disqualify. Samuel said, one does not force except for example a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcee or one freed by ḥalȋṣah in the case of a simple priest. But did we not state: “Secondarily forbidden”? Did he not say “for example”? But did we not state: “A person who by a vow forbids his wife to have any usufruct from him for up to 30 days shall appoint a caretaker; after 30 days he shall divorce her and pay ketubah”! We heard that he shall divorce; did we hear that one forces him?

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 1:18

If he wrote it on material forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi Ḥanin stated: A case came before Rebbi who said, she is divorced. Rebbi Eleazar said, she is not divorced. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the rabbis disagree: For him who said, she is not preliminary married, she is not divorced. For him who said, she is preliminary married, she is divorced. The colleagues say, for restrictions. Rebbi Yose asked, what means “for restrictions”? She is not preliminarily married but divorced, is this “for restrictions”? Or she is not divorced but preliminarily married, is this “for restrictions”? What about it? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: He who says that she is divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by their words. But he who says that she is not divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by words of the Torah. Therefore, by material forbidden for usufruct by their words she is preliminarily married. If you say so, does this not disagree with Rav? For Rav said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: A person who uses leavened material for preliminary marriage after noontime did not do anything. Is leavened material of any use after noontime? There, he used the material for preliminary marriage, but here he effected the preliminary marriage by the [written] conditions. But then she should be preliminarily married even with material forbidden for usufruct by the Torah! What is the difference between this and a document not worth a peruṭah? There, it cannot be used as filler. But here, it can be used as filler.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 1:18

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 2:48

“One may not use the first-born of a she-ass to preliminarily marry a woman, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” That disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar in two respects. If during its lifetime, it disagrees following the rabbis; if after breaking the neck, it disagrees following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yudan: Explain it that it died. If he broke its neck, it is forbidden for usufruct, but Rebbi Simeon permits it. “Breaking the neck, breaking the neck.” Since “breaking the neck” mentioned there implies that one has to break its neck, bury it, and it is forbidden for usufruct, so “breaking of the neck” mentioned here implies that one has to break its neck, [bury it,] and it is forbidden for usufruct. Following Rebbi Eleazar it is understandable. He permits during its lifetime; he needs an argument to forbid it after the breaking of the neck. Following Rebbi Joḥanan it is difficult. If it is forbidden during its lifetime, not so much more after breaking of its neck? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: It is needed following the rabbis, lest you say that since the Torah combined the breaking of its neck with its redemption, and its redemption makes it profane, so also the breaking of its neck should make it profane. Do we find anything whose lifting makes profane and which is forbidden for usufruct? They objected: There is ṭevel containing the tithe of the poor which becomes totally profane by its lifting; but Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna said in the name of Rebbi: A person eating produce which is ṭevel for the tithe of the poor is guilty of a deadly sin. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: So the rabbis answer Rebbi Simeon: Do we find anything that needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct? He replied to them: There is the first-born human who needs redemption and is permitted for usufruct.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 2:48

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 3:7

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “This animal shall be an elevation sacrifice after thirty days;” if he sold it during the thirty days, it is not sold; its dedication does not sanctify. For which purpose did he say: “after thirty”? To reserve for himself shearing and work. “Pick from this field that it should be acquired by you after thirty days;” if he sold it within thirty days it is not sold, if he dedicated it it is not sanctified. Why did he say, after thirty days? To reserve usufruct for himself. “Here you have this tetradrachma that your field should be mine after thirty days,” if he sold it within thirty days it is not sold, if he dedicated it it is not sanctified. What is the difference between this and a woman? But if he sold it, it is sold.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:8

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: If “the bull” had not been written, I would have inferred the bull from the pit. Since for the pit, which is not usually moving, one has to pay full damages, not so much more for the bull which usually is moving? Either since for the pit one pays full damages, also the bull pays full damages, or since the bull pays half damages, also for the pit one should have to pay half damages. If “the bull” had not been written, I would have inferred the bull from the pit; if “the pit” had not been written, I would have inferred the bull from the pit. Why was it stated here? Because there are many things. Similarly, the seat is not like the bed and the bed is not like the seat. One understands that the seat is not like the bed. The seat a square ṭephaḥ large can become impure; the bed four ṭephaḥim large can become impure. Because He declared a bed four ṭephaḥim large as impure, would a seat a square ṭephaḥ large become impure? If the seat had not been written, I would have inferred seat from bed. Why was it stated here? Because there are many things to be stated. Similarly, the paragraph on lighting the candles is not like the paragraph about exiling the impure and the paragraph on exiling the impure is not like the paragraph about lighting the candles. If the paragraph about exiling the impure had not been written, I would have inferred the rules of the paragraph on exiling the impure from the paragraph on lighting the candles. Why was it stated here? Because there are many things to be stated. So what is equal about them is that they are “command” here and in future generations, so everything by “command” is for here and for future generations. Rebbi La said, it is necessary that all be written; and the bull teaches that the owners have to deal with the cadaver. But it is written, “and the cadaver shall be his”, and it is written for the pit, “and the cadaver shall be his”! Rebbi Ismael said, this excludes real estate which cannot be moved; it excludes a human because there can be no usufruct from him in death. But the fire teaches for all of them that one is responsible for accidents.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 7:22

It is written: “They are impure for you”. Why does it say “they shall be impure for you”? One is for the prohibition of eating, the other for the prohibition of usufruct. Anything forbidden [by the Torah is forbidden for trade, but everything whose prohibition] is rabbinical is permitted for trade. But is there not the donkey? It is raised for work. Is there not the camel? It is raised for work.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 8:36

One who said, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, if Y died to Z. The one who was mentioned earlier receives the property earlier. If the second died during the first’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If the third died during the second’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If both the second and the third die during the first’s lifetime, the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he only has the usufruct. Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not even as a gift from a healthy person. As in the following: A woman wrote her properties over to a certain man. She needed money and sold it to her husband. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Madia brought the case before Rebbi Yose. Did not Rebbi Yannai say, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the gift of a healthy person? Since the husband of this woman is obligated to provide for her food, is that not like a death-bed will? So far, he is obligated to provide for her bread and legumes. Maybe eggs? Maybe chicken? Since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, that means that she may sell the property even in order to eat delicacies. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, it was stated there that her burial is part of her upkeep. If she did not have a burial site, since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, it means that he may sell the real estate and acquire a burial site.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 8:36

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:29

MISHNAH: Similarly did Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel say that if a person was guarantor for a woman’s ketubah and her husband divorced her, the latter has to make a vow not to have any usufruct from her so they could not plan a partnership against that person’s property and then he would take back his wife.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:30

HALAKHAH: “Similarly did Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel say,” etc. The father-in-law of Rebbi Ḥaggai’s daughter was guarantor for Rebbi Ḥaggai’s daughter’s ketubah. She turned out to be a spendthrift. The case came before Rebbi Aḥa, who said that he would have to make a vow not to have usufruct. Rebbi Yose said, he does not have to make a vow not to have usufruct. The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, but if he would take her back, the creditor would come and seize it. He said, he would not take her back. But it could be transformed into movables or paraphernalia which the creditors could not seize. The case was decided following Rebbi Aḥa.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:30

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 3:3

Where do we hold? If about one who said, an oath that I shall eat according to Torah standards, even Rebbi Aqiba will agree. And if about one who says, an oath that I shall not taste, even the rabbis will agree. But we hold, about minute amounts. Are minute amounts eating? Explain it following Rebbi Aqiba who said that a minute amount is eating. What is the difference between them? “An oath that I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. Also for blurted oaths it is so: “An oath that my wife may not have any usufruct from me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is forbidden [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his wife is permitted [to have usufruct], in the opinion of the rabbis his wife is forbidden. Also with property it is the same. “An oath that my properties be forbidden to me if I shall eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba they are forbidden, in the opinion of the rabbis his properties are permitted. “That I shall not eat this loaf,” and he ate it except a minute amount. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba his properties are permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis they are forbidden.

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 3:3

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:26

MISHNAH: The following Gentile properties are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct: Wine, and vinegar which originally was wine, and Hadrianic pottery, and heart-removed skins. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if the tear is circular they are forbidden, oblong permitted. Meat brought into a pagan Temple is permitted but what leaves is forbidden because it is sacrifice to the dead, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. It is forbidden to trade with those who go to ugliness.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:40

Rebbi Assi, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, it should be sold entirely to a Gentile except the value of the libation wine contained in it. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Undetermined wine of a Gentile is forbidden but does not make impure. If he deposited it with him it is forbidden for drinking but permitted for usufruct. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, how? If he segregated it? He told him, if he deposited it. Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There are three kinds of wine. If he saw the Gentile pouring a libation, it is certainly pagan worship and induces severe impurity like a reptile.Gentiles’ undetermined wine is forbidden but does not cause impurity. If he deposited with him with one seal it is forbidden to drink and permitted for usufruct. Rebbi Jeremiah said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: See what he said! He only said with a seal. Therefore without a seal it is forbidden for drinking and usufruct. Rebbi Eleazar instructed: if it was segregated; Rebbi Ze‘ira enjoyed it.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:40

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:42

If he deposited with him with a seal. Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one says, prohibited, and one says, permitted. Where do they disagree? For usufruct. But for drinking it is forbidden.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:44

“And Hadrianic pottery.” Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: does practice follow Rebbi Meïr? As it was stated, “Hadrianic pottery is prohibited and its prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, its prohibition is not of usufruct.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: what is the status of the cloth about which we stated here? He was offended by this and told him, even for him who permits there, here it is forbidden. There, the prohibition is not visible, here the prohibition is visible. May one use it to support the legs of a couch? Rebbi Eleazar says it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan says it is forbidden.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:44

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:51

MISHNAH: Gentiles’ wine skins and jugs containing an Israel’s wine are forbidden and their prohibition is one of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say that their prohibition is not one of usufruct.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:51

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:62

MISHNAH: Gentiles’ grape kernels and skins are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, moist they are forbidden, dry permitted.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:63

HALAKHAH: “Gentiles’ grape kernels and skins,” etc. Rav Sheshet in the name of Rav: Moist they are forbidden even for usufruct; dry they are permitted even to eat. But did we not state, “it does not become libation wine until it descends into the cistern”? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Judah: The Mishnah is about one who lowers them into the cistern.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:65

MISHNAH: Fish sauce, cheese, and theriac of Gentiles are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, theitr prohibition is not of usufruct.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:65

MISHNAH: Fish sauce, cheese, and theriac of Gentiles are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, theitr prohibition is not of usufruct.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:66

HALAKHAH: “Fish sauce, cheese,” etc.“Wine in muries, Rebbi permits but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon forbids.” Therefore, if somebody transgressed and put it in, Rebbi forbids it to laymen but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits it to laymen.” Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits for laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya ber Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles. But did not [Rebbi Yose] state: “From a professional it is permitted, from a non-professional it is forbidden.” From a professional it is permitted, is that not if it is not cooked? Similarly, from a non-professional it is forbidden even if cooked. What about it? If it is to remove contamination it is forbidden because of pagan worship. This implies that usufruct of pagan worship is forbidden, usufruct of heave is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Madia said, following him who said from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows him.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:66

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:68

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua when they were walking on a road, why did they forbid Gentiles’ cheeses? He told him, because they make them with stomach of cadaver. He answered him, is not the stomach of an elevation offering more serious than the stomach of a cadaver and they said, a Cohen who is not repulsed may burn it raw; they did not agree to this but said one has no usufruct but does not commit larceny. He gave a second argument and said, because they curd it with stomach content of calves for pagan worship. He retorted, then why did they not forbid it for usufruct? He deflected him to an other subject and said to him, my brother Ismael, how do you read, for your (m.) friends are better than wine, or for your (f.) friends are better than wine? He told him, for your (f.) friendship is better. He answered, it is not so since the next verse implies it, by the scent of your (m.) good oils.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:68

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:78

MISHNAH: The following matters of Gentiles are forbidden but their prohibition is not of usufruct: Milk which the Gentile milked when no Jew was seeing him, bread, their oil, and anything preserved by cooking. Rebbi and his court permitted oil. Preserves in which usually wine is used, and vinegar, and pieces of triton, and fish sauce not containing a whole fish, and hallec, and a lump of asa foetida, and salqonarit salt; these are forbidden but their prohibition is not of usufruct:

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:78

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:92

HALAKHAH: “The following are permitted for usufruct,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, about a dish in which usually one does not add wine or vinegar. Therefore if it is certain that he added, it is forbidden even for usufruct. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Jew and a Gentile put a pot on the fire, the Jew puts it down and the Gentile stirs. Who puts it back? One would say that the Jew puts it back. Rebbi Benjamin bar Levai said, only if it is cooked like Ben-Drosai’s food. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is cooked like Ben-Drosai’s food, why does the Jew have to put it back? Even the Gentile may put it back.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:92

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 3:67

Why is its shadow forbidden? Because it is an enjoyment. But a grave is forbidden for usufruct and its shadow is permitted! But the Temple Hall is forbidden for usufruct and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai was sitting and teaching in the shadow of the Temple Hall! Therefore the reason cannot be that it is forbidden for usufruct. Rav Abin in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that this impurity of the dead is not logically consistent. For otherwise if a grave were robbing the public and one passed under it one would be pure.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 3:67

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 3:70

MISHNAH: If he took wood from it, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to heat an oven, if it was new it must be destroyed, if it was old it must be cooled down. If he used it to bake bread, it is forbidden for usufruct. If it was mixed with other loaves, all are forbidden for usufruct. Rebbi Eliezer says, he should bring his profit to the Dead Sea. They said to him, idols cannot be redeemed.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 3:70

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 3:72

MISHNAH: If he took from it [wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth the cloth is forbidden for usufruct. If it was mixed up with others, all are forbidden for usufruct. Rebbi Eliezer says, he should bring his profit to the Dead Sea. They said to him, idols cannot be redeemed.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 3:72

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 3:73

HALAKHAH: “If he took from it [wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle,” etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when I descended from a ship I found Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa sitting and asked him. “If he took from it [wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth the cloth is forbidden for usufruct.” But did we not state, “it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of the libation wine in it”? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Ḥaggai raised the question, Ḥaggai resolved it. What is it? There people do not buy from the Gentile; but here people buy cloth from the Gentile.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 3:73

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 4:49

“One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity,” etc. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Samuel, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel. I am atoning for Rebbi Simeon, either permit to drink or forbid for usufruct. Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. There was a case and they permitted for drinking following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: A Gentile does not make libation wine by throwing. Does a Gentile make libation wine in his rage? Let us hear from the following: An Aramean had boxes in a wine press. There came a Jew and sprinkled wine on them. The Aramean came [with] a pitcher and poured it out into the cistern. The case came before the rabbis who said, a Gentile does not make libation wine in his rage.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 5:19

Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Immi: A roasted egg of Samaritans is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Samaritans’ dishes are permitted. This is what you say about a dish usually made without wine or vinegar. Therefore if it is certain that he put some in, it is forbidden even for usufruct. As what had been stated: In earlier times they used to say, why is the wine of Ogdor forbidden? Because of Kefar-Pagesh, and of Burgata because of the Saracen tower, and of the Kushit spring because of Kefar Shalem. They changed to say, open it is everywhere forbidden, sealed it is permitted. Perforated and repaired it is like sealed, Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula said, it is like open. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I can confirm. If it has a cavity on it it was not opened, otherwise it was opened. As the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar went to the city of Samaria. The scribe came to him. He told him, bring me a closed jug. He answered him, there is a spring in front of you, drink. He importuned him; he said, there is a spring in front of you, drink. When he saw that he was going to importune him, he told him, if you are master of yourself, there is a spring in front of you, drink. But if your soul brings you to rebellion, you are going to swallow a knife if you are too covetous. The Samaritans already are degenerate.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 5:48

An ox which was stoned. From the meaning of what was said, the ox shall be stoned would I not know that it cannot be eaten? Why does the verse say, it shall not be eaten? From here that it is forbidden for usufruct.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 5:49

And the calf whose neck was broken. There, there. Since there mentioned further describes a prohibition of usufruct, also there said here implies prohibition of usufruct.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 5:49

And the calf whose neck was broken. There, there. Since there mentioned further describes a prohibition of usufruct, also there said here implies prohibition of usufruct.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 5:50

And the birds of the sufferer from skin disease. Any pure bird you may eat, this is the living bird. But the following you may not eat of them, that is the slaughtered one. Or the other way around? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: The Torah has no prohibition of usufruct which applies to any living thing.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 5:52

And the firstborn donkey. Breaking the neck, breaking the neck. Since there one buries it and it is forbidden for usufruct, also here one buries it and it is forbidden for usufruct.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 5:52

And the firstborn donkey. Breaking the neck, breaking the neck. Since there one buries it and it is forbidden for usufruct, also here one buries it and it is forbidden for usufruct.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 5:53

And meat in milk. It was stated: At three places it is written do not cook a kid goat, about eating, about usufruct, and about cooking.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 5:55

Why did we not state carcasses with them? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it did state only things forbidden for usufruct. Carcass meat is permitted for usufruct. They objected, is there not leavened matter on Passover? Leavened matter makes liable to extirpation, but for these there is no extirpation.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 5:55

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 5:56

Rebbi Yose asked in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: May prohibitions of usufruct become insignificant in (combination) [by being shredded]? But did we not state “the ox which was stoned”? Explain it in pieces. But did we not state “the birds of the sufferer from skin disease”? Explain it as a bird among birds. But did we not state “the nazir’s hair”? Can you say a bird among birds? When they came to study `Orlah did Rebbi Jacob object before Rebbi Yose, did we not state, “if somebody weaves the length of a sīt of firstling’s wool, the cloth must be burned. Of nazir’s hair or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned.” He told him, (if the Tanna had said before us, you would have given) correctly.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 5:57

MISHNAH: If libation wine fell into a cistern, the entire cistern is forbidden for usufruct. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine contained in it.