Kiddushin 7B

שמע מינה בעלי חיים נדחים,

Conclude from it that living things can be permanently deferred. Not only an offering that has already been slaughtered, but also a living animal that has been separated as an offering for which it is disqualified, is permanently deferred from being sacrificed on the altar. Likewise here, when he consecrated only half of it, the animal cannot be offered and is rejected. This ruling is in opposition to the claim that only slaughtered animals are permanently rejected.

ושמע מינה דחוי מעיקרא הוי דחוי, ושמע מינה יש דחוי בדמים.

And furthermore, learn from it that deferral at the outset, i.e., a condition disqualifying the animal from being sacrificed that was present when the animal was first consecrated, is considered a permanent deferral. One does not say that the halakha of deferral applies only to an animal that was eligible to be sacrificed at the time it was consecrated and later was deferred. And learn from it that there is deferral not only with regard to an offering itself, but also with regard to monetary value, i.e., deferral applies even to an animal whose value was consecrated. In this case, half of an animal is not consecrated to be sacrificed as an offering, and yet it can still be permanently deferred from the altar.

בעי רבא: ״חצייך בחצי פרוטה, וחצייך בחצי פרוטה״ מהו? כיון דאמר לה ״חצי פרוטה״⁠ – פסקה, או דילמא מונה והולך הוא?

§ Rava raises a dilemma: If a man says to a woman: Half of you is betrothed with half of one peruta, and half of you with half of one peruta, what is the halakha? Does one say that since he said to her: Half of one peruta, he has divided his statement? In other words, by specifying half of one peruta he intended the betrothal to be performed in two stages, with one half-peruta for each stage, and half of one peruta does not effect betrothal. Or perhaps he was counting toward the full sum of the betrothal money, and intends for the betrothal to take effect at one time.