Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 9, 2018 | ืืณ ื‘ื˜ื‘ืช ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 12

From where do we derive that we follow the majority? Can one rely on the fact that a messenger that one appointed actually did the job? Does one need intent to slaughter?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืคืกื— ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืืœื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืืคืฉืจ ืืคืฉืจ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืืคืฉืจ ืœื ืืคืฉืจ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืืคืฉืจ ืืคืฉืจ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืืคืฉืจ ืœื ืืคืฉืจ

then with regard to the Paschal offering and sacrificial meat that one is obligated to eat, what is there to say? Rather, according to Rabbi Meir, there is no alternative to saying: Where it is possible to examine the situation it is possible, and the majority is not followed; where it is not possible to examine the situation it is not possible, and the majority is followed. If so, here too, according to the Rabbis, it cannot be proven from the above sources that one follows a non-quantifiable majority ab initio, as perhaps where it is possible to examine the situation it is possible, and where it is not possible to examine the situation it is not possible, and the majority is followed.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืจืื” ืื—ื“ ืฉืฉื—ื˜ ืื ืจืื”ื• ืžืชื—ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ืžื•ืชืจ ืœืื›ื•ืœ ืžืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื•ืื ืœืื• ืืกื•ืจ ืœืื›ื•ืœ ืžืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื•

ยง Rav Naแธฅman says that Rav says: In the case of a person who saw one who slaughtered an animal, if the person saw him slaughtering continuously from beginning to end of the act, he is permitted to eat from his slaughter, and if not, he is prohibited from eating from his slaughter.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ื™ื“ืข ื“ื’ืžื™ืจ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืจืื” ื•ืื™ ื“ื™ื“ืข ื“ืœื ื’ืžื™ืจ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If it is a case where the onlooker knows that he is knowledgeable in the halakhot of slaughter, why do I require that the onlooker saw the slaughter? Even if he did not see him slaughter, the onlooker may rely on his slaughter. And if the onlooker knows that he is not knowledgeable in the halakhot of slaughter, it is obvious that only if the person saw him slaughtering from beginning to end he is permitted to eat from his slaughter.

ื•ืืœื ื“ืœื ื™ื“ืข ืื™ ื’ืžื™ืจ ืื™ ืœื ื’ืžื™ืจ ืœื™ืžื ืจื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ

Rather, perhaps it is a case where the onlooker does not know whether he is knowledgeable or whether he is not knowledgeable. But if that is the case, let us say: The majority of those associated with slaughter are experts in the halakhot of slaughter, and one may rely on his slaughter.

ืžื™ ืœื ืชื ื™ื ื”ืจื™ ืฉืžืฆื ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœืช ืฉื—ื•ื˜ื” ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืื• ืฉืืžืจ ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืฆื ืฉื—ื•ื˜ ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ืžืฆื ืฉื—ื•ื˜ ื—ื–ืงืชื• ืฉื—ื•ื˜

Isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: In a case where one found a slaughtered chicken in the marketplace, or where one said to his agent: Go out and slaughter a chicken, and he went and found the chicken slaughtered and he does not know who slaughtered it, its presumptive status is that it was slaughtered properly.

ืืœืžื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืžื ืจื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ

Apparently, we say: The majority of those associated with slaughter are experts. Here too, in a case where it is unknown whether he is knowledgeable, let us say: The majority of those associated with slaughter are experts.

ืœืขื•ืœื ื“ื™ื“ืข ื“ืœื ื’ืžื™ืจ ื•ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืฉื—ื˜ ืงืžืŸ ื—ื“ ืกื™ืžืŸ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืžื“ื”ืื™ ืฉืคื™ืจ ื”ืš ื ืžื™ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื”ืื™ ืืชืจืžื•ื™ื™ ืื™ืชืจืžื™ ืœื™ื” ืื™ื“ืš ืฉืžื ืฉื”ื” ืฉืžื ื“ืจืก

The Gemara answers: Actually, the reference is to a case where the onlooker knows that the one slaughtering is not knowledgeable in the halakhot of slaughter, and where he slaughtered one siman before us properly. Lest you say: From the fact that this siman was slaughtered properly, that siman was also slaughtered properly; therefore, Rav teaches us that this is not so. As, perhaps this siman happened to be slaughtered properly for him, but with regard to the other siman, perhaps he interrupted the slaughter or perhaps he pressed the knife, invalidating the slaughter.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืฆื ื•ืฉื—ื•ื˜ ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ืžืฆื ืฉื—ื•ื˜ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื• ื—ื–ืงืชื• ืฉื—ื•ื˜ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืฆื ื•ืชืจื•ื ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ืžืฆื ืชืจื•ื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื—ื–ืงืชื• ืชืจื•ื

Rav Dimi bar Yosef raised a dilemma before Rav Naแธฅman: With regard to one who says to his agent: Go out and slaughter a chicken, and he went and found the chicken slaughtered, what is the halakha? Rav Naแธฅman said to him: Its presumptive status is that it was slaughtered properly. And he raised another dilemma: With regard to one who says to his agent: Go out and separate teruma for me, and he went and found that teruma was separated from his produce, what is the halakha? Rav Naแธฅman said to him: Its presumptive status is not that teruma was separated.

ืžื” ื ืคืฉืš ืื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ืฉืœื™ื— ืขื•ืฉื” ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืชืจื•ืžื” ื ืžื™ ื•ืื™ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื–ืงื” ืฉืœื™ื— ืขื•ืฉื” ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื ืžื™ ืœื

Rav Dimi bar Yosef challenged: Whichever way you look at it, your ruling is problematic. If there is a presumption that an agent performs his assigned agency, that should be the case even with regard to teruma; and if there is no presumption that an agent performs his assigned agency, there should be no such presumption even with regard to slaughter.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื™ ืชื™ื›ื•ืœ ืขืœื” ื›ื•ืจื ื“ืžืœื—ื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื–ืงื” ืฉืœื™ื— ืขื•ืฉื” ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื• ื•ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืื™ื ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืฉืžืข ื•ืื–ืœ ืฉื—ื˜ ืจื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื“ื™ืœืžื ืื™ื ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืฉืžืข ื•ืื–ืœ ืชืจื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืชื•ืจื ืฉืœื ืžื“ืขืช ื•ื”ืชื•ืจื ืฉืœื ืžื“ืขืช ืื™ืŸ ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ืชืจื•ืžื”

Rav Naแธฅman said to Rav Dimi in jest: After you eat a kor of salt over it, and analyze the matter at length, you will be able to understand the difference. Actually, there is no presumption that an agent performs his assigned agency, and in the case of slaughter, even if perhaps another person heard him instruct the agent and that person went and slaughtered the chicken, the slaughter would be valid, because the majority of those associated with slaughter are experts. By contrast, in the case of teruma, if perhaps another person heard him instruct the agent and then went and separated his teruma, he becomes one who designates teruma without the knowledge of the owner of the produce; and with regard to one who designates teruma without the knowledge of the owner of the produce, his teruma is not teruma.

ืœื™ืžื ืจื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืจื™ ืฉืื‘ื“ื• ืœื• ื’ื“ื™ื™ื• ื•ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ื• ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ืžืฆืืŸ ืฉื—ื•ื˜ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืกืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืžืชื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืฉืžืฆืืŸ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืฉืžืฆืืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the statement: The majority of those associated with slaughter are experts, is a dispute between tannaโ€™im, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where oneโ€™s young goats and roosters were lost, and the owner went and found them slaughtered, Rabbi Yehuda deems the meat forbidden, and Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, deems it permitted. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears correct in a case where the owner found the slaughtered animals in a scrap heap, as the concern is that they were thrown away because the slaughter was not valid. And the statement of Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, appears correct in a case where he found them in the house.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื”ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ

What, is it not with regard to this matter that they disagree, that one Sage, Rabbi แธคanina, holds: We say that the majority of those associated with slaughter are experts, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: We do not say that the majority of those associated with slaughter are experts?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืจื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ ื•ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืฉืจื™ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ืฉื•ืง ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืืกื•ืจ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื“ื ืขืฉื•ื™ ืœื”ื˜ื™ืœ ื ื‘ืœืชื• ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืขืฉื•ื™ ืœื”ื˜ื™ืœ ื ื‘ืœืชื• ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ื‘ื™ืช

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: No, the fact is that everyone agrees that the majority of those associated with slaughter are experts, and if he found the slaughtered goats or roosters in the house, everyone agrees that it is permitted to eat the meat. If he found them in a scrap heap that is in the marketplace, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to eat the meat. When they disagree is in a case where he found them in a scrap heap that is in the house. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: A person is prone to cast his unslaughtered animal carcass onto a scrap heap that is in the house. And one Sage, Rabbi แธคanina, holds: A person is not prone to cast his unslaughtered animal carcass onto a scrap heap that is in the house.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืฉืžืฆืืŸ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืžืื™ ืืฉืคื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ืฉื•ืง ื”ื ืืžืจืช ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืืกื•ืจ ืืœื ืœืื• ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ื‘ื™ืช

The Master said in the baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears correct in a case where he found them in the scrap heap. The Gemara asks: What is the term scrap heap referring to in this context? If we say the reference is to a scrap heap in the marketplace, didnโ€™t you say that everyone agrees that it is prohibited, and it is not merely the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rather, it is obvious that he found it on a scrap heap that is in the house, and it is in that case that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืฉืžืฆืืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื‘ื™ืช ืžืžืฉ ื”ืืžืจืช ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืฉืจื™ ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืงืฉื™ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื“ืจื‘ื™

Say the latter clause of the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: And the statement of Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, appears correct in a case where he found them in the house. What is the word house referring to in this context? If we say the reference is to an actual house, didnโ€™t you say that everyone agrees that it is permitted? Rather, it is obvious that he found it on a scrap heap that is in the house. If so, it is difficult, as there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, where he rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda to prohibit the meat in a case where it is found in a scrap heap in the house, and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, where he rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, to permit the meat in that case.

ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ืฉื•ืง ืฉืืฃ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืœื ื ื—ืœืง ืขืœื™ื• ืืœื ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ืฉื•ืง ืžื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืณ

The Gemara explains: This is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears correct to Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, in a case where one found them in a scrap heap that is in a marketplace, as Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda only in a case where one found them in a scrap heap that is in the house. But in a case where he found them in a scrap heap that is in a marketplace he concedes to Rabbi Yehuda. And the statement of Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, appears correct to Rabbi Yehuda in a case where he found them in the house, as he concedes to Rabbi แธคanina in that case.

ื—ื•ืฅ ืžื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉืžื ื™ืงืœืงืœื• ืืช ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ืฉืžื ืงืœืงืœื• ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืืœื ืฉืžื ื™ืงืœืงืœื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื–ืืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกืจื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื›ืชื—ืœื”

ยง The mishna stated: Everyone slaughters an animal, i.e., can perform halakhically valid slaughter, and their slaughter is valid, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, lest they ruin their slaughter. The Gemara infers: The tanna does not teach: Due to the concern that they ruined their slaughter, in the past tense; rather, he teaches: Lest they ruin their slaughter, in the future. Rava says: That is to say that one does not give them non-sacred animals for slaughter ab initio, even with the supervision of others.

ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืฉืฉื—ื˜ื• ื•ืื—ืจื™ื ืจื•ืื™ื ืื•ืชื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื“ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื›ื•ื•ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

The mishna continues: And for all of them, when they slaughtered an animal and others see and supervise them, their slaughter is valid, including even a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, who lack competence and whose intent is not halakhically effective. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that we do not require intent for slaughter?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ื–ืขื™ืจื ื“ืžืŸ ื—ื‘ืจื™ื ื–ืจืง ืกื›ื™ืŸ ืœื ื•ืขืฆื” ื‘ื›ื•ืชืœ ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืฉื—ื˜ื” ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืชื ื™ ืœื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื” ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ

Rava said: It is Rabbi Natan, as Oshaya, the youngest of the company of Sages, taught a baraita, stating: If one threw a knife to embed it in the wall, and in the course of its flight the knife went and slaughtered an animal in its proper manner, Rabbi Natan deems the slaughter valid, and the Rabbis deem the slaughter not valid. Oshaya teaches the baraita and he states about it: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan that there is no need for intent to perform a valid act of slaughter.

ื•ื”ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืžื•ืœื™ืš ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ืฉื”ืœื›ื” ื•ื‘ืื” ื›ื“ืจื›ื”

The Gemara asks: How could the slaughter in the baraita be valid? But donโ€™t we require that the slaughterer move the knife back and forth on the throat of the animal? When one throws a knife, it goes in one direction and does not return. The Gemara answers: The case in the baraita is one where the knife went and cut the animalโ€™s throat, caromed off the wall and came back to cut the throat again in its proper manner.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืงื˜ืŸ ื™ืฉ ืœื• ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืžื—ืฉื‘ื”

ยง Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan raises a dilemma: In matters that require thought and intent, does a minor have halakhically effective thought, or does he not have halakhically effective thought?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื•ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืขืฉื” ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืžืขืฉื” ื“ืœื ืงื ืžื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืžืขืฉื” ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ื ืžื™ ืœื ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื”

Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba: And let Rabbi Yoแธฅanan raise this dilemma with regard to the action of a minor, whether the action of a minor that indicates intent is effective. What is different about the action of a minor that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan does not raise a dilemma? Is it due to the fact that we learned in a mishna (Kelim 17:15): A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor have the capacity to perform an action that is halakhically effective? With regard to thought as well let him not raise this dilemma, as we learned in the same mishna: They do not have the capacity for halakhically effective thought.

ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืืœื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืจืžื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืื’ื•ื– ืฉื—ืงืงื•ื ืชื™ื ื•ืงื•ืช ืœืžื•ื“ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขืคืจ ืื• ืฉื”ืชืงื™ื ื•ื ืœื›ืฃ ืžืื–ื ื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืžืขืฉื”

As we learned in that mishna: With regard to an acorn, a pomegranate, or a nut, which minors hollowed in order to measure dirt with them or that they affixed to a scale, the halakhic status of those shells is that of vessels, and they are susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, if the minors merely thought to use the shells for measuring or weighing, unlike adults, they do not thereby render those shells into vessels. The reason for this distinction is due to the fact that they have the capacity to perform an action,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 12

ืคืกื— ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืืœื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืืคืฉืจ ืืคืฉืจ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืืคืฉืจ ืœื ืืคืฉืจ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืืคืฉืจ ืืคืฉืจ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืืคืฉืจ ืœื ืืคืฉืจ

then with regard to the Paschal offering and sacrificial meat that one is obligated to eat, what is there to say? Rather, according to Rabbi Meir, there is no alternative to saying: Where it is possible to examine the situation it is possible, and the majority is not followed; where it is not possible to examine the situation it is not possible, and the majority is followed. If so, here too, according to the Rabbis, it cannot be proven from the above sources that one follows a non-quantifiable majority ab initio, as perhaps where it is possible to examine the situation it is possible, and where it is not possible to examine the situation it is not possible, and the majority is followed.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืจืื” ืื—ื“ ืฉืฉื—ื˜ ืื ืจืื”ื• ืžืชื—ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ืžื•ืชืจ ืœืื›ื•ืœ ืžืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื•ืื ืœืื• ืืกื•ืจ ืœืื›ื•ืœ ืžืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื•

ยง Rav Naแธฅman says that Rav says: In the case of a person who saw one who slaughtered an animal, if the person saw him slaughtering continuously from beginning to end of the act, he is permitted to eat from his slaughter, and if not, he is prohibited from eating from his slaughter.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ื™ื“ืข ื“ื’ืžื™ืจ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืจืื” ื•ืื™ ื“ื™ื“ืข ื“ืœื ื’ืžื™ืจ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If it is a case where the onlooker knows that he is knowledgeable in the halakhot of slaughter, why do I require that the onlooker saw the slaughter? Even if he did not see him slaughter, the onlooker may rely on his slaughter. And if the onlooker knows that he is not knowledgeable in the halakhot of slaughter, it is obvious that only if the person saw him slaughtering from beginning to end he is permitted to eat from his slaughter.

ื•ืืœื ื“ืœื ื™ื“ืข ืื™ ื’ืžื™ืจ ืื™ ืœื ื’ืžื™ืจ ืœื™ืžื ืจื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ

Rather, perhaps it is a case where the onlooker does not know whether he is knowledgeable or whether he is not knowledgeable. But if that is the case, let us say: The majority of those associated with slaughter are experts in the halakhot of slaughter, and one may rely on his slaughter.

ืžื™ ืœื ืชื ื™ื ื”ืจื™ ืฉืžืฆื ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœืช ืฉื—ื•ื˜ื” ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืื• ืฉืืžืจ ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืฆื ืฉื—ื•ื˜ ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ืžืฆื ืฉื—ื•ื˜ ื—ื–ืงืชื• ืฉื—ื•ื˜

Isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: In a case where one found a slaughtered chicken in the marketplace, or where one said to his agent: Go out and slaughter a chicken, and he went and found the chicken slaughtered and he does not know who slaughtered it, its presumptive status is that it was slaughtered properly.

ืืœืžื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืžื ืจื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ

Apparently, we say: The majority of those associated with slaughter are experts. Here too, in a case where it is unknown whether he is knowledgeable, let us say: The majority of those associated with slaughter are experts.

ืœืขื•ืœื ื“ื™ื“ืข ื“ืœื ื’ืžื™ืจ ื•ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืฉื—ื˜ ืงืžืŸ ื—ื“ ืกื™ืžืŸ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืžื“ื”ืื™ ืฉืคื™ืจ ื”ืš ื ืžื™ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื”ืื™ ืืชืจืžื•ื™ื™ ืื™ืชืจืžื™ ืœื™ื” ืื™ื“ืš ืฉืžื ืฉื”ื” ืฉืžื ื“ืจืก

The Gemara answers: Actually, the reference is to a case where the onlooker knows that the one slaughtering is not knowledgeable in the halakhot of slaughter, and where he slaughtered one siman before us properly. Lest you say: From the fact that this siman was slaughtered properly, that siman was also slaughtered properly; therefore, Rav teaches us that this is not so. As, perhaps this siman happened to be slaughtered properly for him, but with regard to the other siman, perhaps he interrupted the slaughter or perhaps he pressed the knife, invalidating the slaughter.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืฆื ื•ืฉื—ื•ื˜ ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ืžืฆื ืฉื—ื•ื˜ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื• ื—ื–ืงืชื• ืฉื—ื•ื˜ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืฆื ื•ืชืจื•ื ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ืžืฆื ืชืจื•ื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื—ื–ืงืชื• ืชืจื•ื

Rav Dimi bar Yosef raised a dilemma before Rav Naแธฅman: With regard to one who says to his agent: Go out and slaughter a chicken, and he went and found the chicken slaughtered, what is the halakha? Rav Naแธฅman said to him: Its presumptive status is that it was slaughtered properly. And he raised another dilemma: With regard to one who says to his agent: Go out and separate teruma for me, and he went and found that teruma was separated from his produce, what is the halakha? Rav Naแธฅman said to him: Its presumptive status is not that teruma was separated.

ืžื” ื ืคืฉืš ืื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ืฉืœื™ื— ืขื•ืฉื” ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืชืจื•ืžื” ื ืžื™ ื•ืื™ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื–ืงื” ืฉืœื™ื— ืขื•ืฉื” ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื ืžื™ ืœื

Rav Dimi bar Yosef challenged: Whichever way you look at it, your ruling is problematic. If there is a presumption that an agent performs his assigned agency, that should be the case even with regard to teruma; and if there is no presumption that an agent performs his assigned agency, there should be no such presumption even with regard to slaughter.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื™ ืชื™ื›ื•ืœ ืขืœื” ื›ื•ืจื ื“ืžืœื—ื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื–ืงื” ืฉืœื™ื— ืขื•ืฉื” ืฉืœื™ื—ื•ืชื• ื•ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืื™ื ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืฉืžืข ื•ืื–ืœ ืฉื—ื˜ ืจื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื“ื™ืœืžื ืื™ื ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืฉืžืข ื•ืื–ืœ ืชืจื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืชื•ืจื ืฉืœื ืžื“ืขืช ื•ื”ืชื•ืจื ืฉืœื ืžื“ืขืช ืื™ืŸ ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ืชืจื•ืžื”

Rav Naแธฅman said to Rav Dimi in jest: After you eat a kor of salt over it, and analyze the matter at length, you will be able to understand the difference. Actually, there is no presumption that an agent performs his assigned agency, and in the case of slaughter, even if perhaps another person heard him instruct the agent and that person went and slaughtered the chicken, the slaughter would be valid, because the majority of those associated with slaughter are experts. By contrast, in the case of teruma, if perhaps another person heard him instruct the agent and then went and separated his teruma, he becomes one who designates teruma without the knowledge of the owner of the produce; and with regard to one who designates teruma without the knowledge of the owner of the produce, his teruma is not teruma.

ืœื™ืžื ืจื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืจื™ ืฉืื‘ื“ื• ืœื• ื’ื“ื™ื™ื• ื•ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ื• ื•ื”ืœืš ื•ืžืฆืืŸ ืฉื—ื•ื˜ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืกืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืžืชื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืฉืžืฆืืŸ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืฉืžืฆืืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the statement: The majority of those associated with slaughter are experts, is a dispute between tannaโ€™im, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where oneโ€™s young goats and roosters were lost, and the owner went and found them slaughtered, Rabbi Yehuda deems the meat forbidden, and Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, deems it permitted. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears correct in a case where the owner found the slaughtered animals in a scrap heap, as the concern is that they were thrown away because the slaughter was not valid. And the statement of Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, appears correct in a case where he found them in the house.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื”ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ

What, is it not with regard to this matter that they disagree, that one Sage, Rabbi แธคanina, holds: We say that the majority of those associated with slaughter are experts, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: We do not say that the majority of those associated with slaughter are experts?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืจื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื”ืŸ ื•ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืฉืจื™ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ืฉื•ืง ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืืกื•ืจ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื“ื ืขืฉื•ื™ ืœื”ื˜ื™ืœ ื ื‘ืœืชื• ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืขืฉื•ื™ ืœื”ื˜ื™ืœ ื ื‘ืœืชื• ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ื‘ื™ืช

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: No, the fact is that everyone agrees that the majority of those associated with slaughter are experts, and if he found the slaughtered goats or roosters in the house, everyone agrees that it is permitted to eat the meat. If he found them in a scrap heap that is in the marketplace, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to eat the meat. When they disagree is in a case where he found them in a scrap heap that is in the house. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: A person is prone to cast his unslaughtered animal carcass onto a scrap heap that is in the house. And one Sage, Rabbi แธคanina, holds: A person is not prone to cast his unslaughtered animal carcass onto a scrap heap that is in the house.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืฉืžืฆืืŸ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืžืื™ ืืฉืคื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ืฉื•ืง ื”ื ืืžืจืช ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืืกื•ืจ ืืœื ืœืื• ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ื‘ื™ืช

The Master said in the baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears correct in a case where he found them in the scrap heap. The Gemara asks: What is the term scrap heap referring to in this context? If we say the reference is to a scrap heap in the marketplace, didnโ€™t you say that everyone agrees that it is prohibited, and it is not merely the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rather, it is obvious that he found it on a scrap heap that is in the house, and it is in that case that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืฉืžืฆืืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื‘ื™ืช ืžืžืฉ ื”ืืžืจืช ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืฉืจื™ ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืงืฉื™ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื“ืจื‘ื™

Say the latter clause of the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: And the statement of Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, appears correct in a case where he found them in the house. What is the word house referring to in this context? If we say the reference is to an actual house, didnโ€™t you say that everyone agrees that it is permitted? Rather, it is obvious that he found it on a scrap heap that is in the house. If so, it is difficult, as there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, where he rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda to prohibit the meat in a case where it is found in a scrap heap in the house, and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, where he rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, to permit the meat in that case.

ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ืฉื•ืง ืฉืืฃ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืœื ื ื—ืœืง ืขืœื™ื• ืืœื ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ืฉื‘ืฉื•ืง ืžื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ื ืจืื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืณ

The Gemara explains: This is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears correct to Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, in a case where one found them in a scrap heap that is in a marketplace, as Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda only in a case where one found them in a scrap heap that is in the house. But in a case where he found them in a scrap heap that is in a marketplace he concedes to Rabbi Yehuda. And the statement of Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, appears correct to Rabbi Yehuda in a case where he found them in the house, as he concedes to Rabbi แธคanina in that case.

ื—ื•ืฅ ืžื—ืจืฉ ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉืžื ื™ืงืœืงืœื• ืืช ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ืฉืžื ืงืœืงืœื• ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืืœื ืฉืžื ื™ืงืœืงืœื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื–ืืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืกืจื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื›ืชื—ืœื”

ยง The mishna stated: Everyone slaughters an animal, i.e., can perform halakhically valid slaughter, and their slaughter is valid, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, lest they ruin their slaughter. The Gemara infers: The tanna does not teach: Due to the concern that they ruined their slaughter, in the past tense; rather, he teaches: Lest they ruin their slaughter, in the future. Rava says: That is to say that one does not give them non-sacred animals for slaughter ab initio, even with the supervision of others.

ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืฉืฉื—ื˜ื• ื•ืื—ืจื™ื ืจื•ืื™ื ืื•ืชื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื“ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื›ื•ื•ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

The mishna continues: And for all of them, when they slaughtered an animal and others see and supervise them, their slaughter is valid, including even a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, who lack competence and whose intent is not halakhically effective. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that we do not require intent for slaughter?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ื–ืขื™ืจื ื“ืžืŸ ื—ื‘ืจื™ื ื–ืจืง ืกื›ื™ืŸ ืœื ื•ืขืฆื” ื‘ื›ื•ืชืœ ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืฉื—ื˜ื” ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืชื ื™ ืœื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื” ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ

Rava said: It is Rabbi Natan, as Oshaya, the youngest of the company of Sages, taught a baraita, stating: If one threw a knife to embed it in the wall, and in the course of its flight the knife went and slaughtered an animal in its proper manner, Rabbi Natan deems the slaughter valid, and the Rabbis deem the slaughter not valid. Oshaya teaches the baraita and he states about it: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan that there is no need for intent to perform a valid act of slaughter.

ื•ื”ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืžื•ืœื™ืš ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ืฉื”ืœื›ื” ื•ื‘ืื” ื›ื“ืจื›ื”

The Gemara asks: How could the slaughter in the baraita be valid? But donโ€™t we require that the slaughterer move the knife back and forth on the throat of the animal? When one throws a knife, it goes in one direction and does not return. The Gemara answers: The case in the baraita is one where the knife went and cut the animalโ€™s throat, caromed off the wall and came back to cut the throat again in its proper manner.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืงื˜ืŸ ื™ืฉ ืœื• ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืžื—ืฉื‘ื”

ยง Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan raises a dilemma: In matters that require thought and intent, does a minor have halakhically effective thought, or does he not have halakhically effective thought?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื•ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืขืฉื” ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืžืขืฉื” ื“ืœื ืงื ืžื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืžืขืฉื” ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ื ืžื™ ืœื ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื”

Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba: And let Rabbi Yoแธฅanan raise this dilemma with regard to the action of a minor, whether the action of a minor that indicates intent is effective. What is different about the action of a minor that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan does not raise a dilemma? Is it due to the fact that we learned in a mishna (Kelim 17:15): A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor have the capacity to perform an action that is halakhically effective? With regard to thought as well let him not raise this dilemma, as we learned in the same mishna: They do not have the capacity for halakhically effective thought.

ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืืœื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืจืžื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืื’ื•ื– ืฉื—ืงืงื•ื ืชื™ื ื•ืงื•ืช ืœืžื•ื“ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขืคืจ ืื• ืฉื”ืชืงื™ื ื•ื ืœื›ืฃ ืžืื–ื ื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืžืขืฉื”

As we learned in that mishna: With regard to an acorn, a pomegranate, or a nut, which minors hollowed in order to measure dirt with them or that they affixed to a scale, the halakhic status of those shells is that of vessels, and they are susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, if the minors merely thought to use the shells for measuring or weighing, unlike adults, they do not thereby render those shells into vessels. The reason for this distinction is due to the fact that they have the capacity to perform an action,

Scroll To Top