Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Rav Nachman states in the name of Rav that meat is permitted if someone supervised the slaughter throughout the process. The Gemara questions why supervision is necessary, given the principle that most who engage in slaughtering are experts. It concludes that the case involves someone known to be ignorant of the laws of shechita who successfully severed the first siman (sign); however, this is insufficient to assume the second will be handled correctly, thus requiring supervision to ensure no disqualifying error occurs during the remainder of the slaughter.
Rav Dimi bar Yosef asked Rav Nachman: If an agent is appointed to slaughter an animal or separate teruma (tithes), and the owner subsequently finds the meat slaughtered or the produce tithed, can we assume the agent performed the task and the food is permitted? Rav Nachman distinguished between the two: the meat is permitted, but the produce is not. He explained that we cannot automatically assume the agent performed the task, and must consider that a third party might have intervened. Regarding shechita, this is acceptable because of the presumption that most slaughterers are experts. However, regarding teruma, if a third party separates tithes without the owner’s permission, the act is legally ineffective.
The Gemara suggests that the question of whether we presume most slaughterers are experts is a Tannaitic dispute, but this suggestion is ultimately rejected.
Although a deaf-mute, a minor, or a mentally incompetent person may slaughter under supervision, the Gemara infers from the Mishna’s phrasing that one should not grant them an animal to slaughter ab initio. Furthermore, the fact that their slaughter is valid and the meat is permitted indicates that slaughtering does not require intent (kavana), a position attributed to Rabbi Natan.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Chullin 12
פֶּסַח וְקָדָשִׁים מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּאֶפְשָׁר – אֶפְשָׁר, הֵיכָא דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר – לָא אֶפְשָׁר. הָכָא נָמֵי, הֵיכָא דְּאֶפְשָׁר – אֶפְשָׁר, הֵיכָא דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר – לָא אֶפְשָׁר.
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.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַב: רָאָה אֶחָד שֶׁשָּׁחַט, אִם רָאָהוּ מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף – מוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ.
§ Rav Naḥman 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.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּיָדַע דִּגְמִיר, לְמָה לִי רָאָה? וְאִי דְּיָדַע דְּלָא גְּמִיר, פְּשִׁיטָא!
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.
וְאֶלָּא, דְּלָא יְדַע אִי גְּמִיר אִי לָא גְּמִיר, לֵימָא: רוֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מוּמְחִין הֵן.
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.
מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁמָּצָא תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת שְׁחוּטָה בַּשּׁוּק, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ ״צֵא שְׁחוֹט״, וְהָלַךְ וּמָצָא שָׁחוּט – חֶזְקָתוֹ שָׁחוּט.
Isn’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.
אַלְמָא אָמְרִינַן: רוֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מוּמְחִין הֵן. הָכָא נָמֵי לֵימָא: רוֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מוּמְחִין הֵן!
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.
לְעוֹלָם דְּיָדַע דְּלָא גְּמִיר, וּכְגוֹן דִּשְׁחַט קַמַּן חַד סִימָן שַׁפִּיר. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִדְּהַאי שַׁפִּיר הָךְ נָמֵי שַׁפִּיר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: הַאי אִתְרְמוֹיֵי אִיתְרְמִי לֵיהּ, אִידַּךְ – שֶׁמָּא שָׁהָה שֶׁמָּא דָּרַס.
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.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב דִּימִי בַּר יוֹסֵף מֵרַב נַחְמָן: הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ ״צֵא וּשְׁחוֹט״, וְהָלַךְ וּמָצָא שָׁחוּט, מַהוּ? אָמַר לוֹ: חֶזְקָתוֹ שָׁחוּט. הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ ״צֵא וּתְרוֹם״, וְהָלַךְ וּמָצָא תָּרוּם, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין חֶזְקָתוֹ תָּרוּם.
Rav Dimi bar Yosef raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: 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 Naḥman 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 Naḥman said to him: Its presumptive status is not that teruma was separated.
מָה נַפְשָׁךְ, אִי חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ – אֲפִילּוּ תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי, וְאִי אֵין חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ – אֲפִילּוּ שְׁחִיטָה נָמֵי לָא.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְכִי תֵּיכוּל עֲלַהּ כּוֹרָא דְמִלְחָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵין חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, וּשְׁחִיטָה – אִי נָמֵי דִּילְמָא אִינָשׁ אַחֲרִינָא שְׁמַע וַאֲזַל שְׁחַט – רוֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מוּמְחִין הֵן. תְּרוּמָה – דִּילְמָא אִינָשׁ אַחֲרִינָא שְׁמַע וַאֲזַל תְּרַם, הָוֵה לֵיהּ תּוֹרֵם שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת, וְהַתּוֹרֵם שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת – אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.
Rav Naḥman 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.
לֵימָא: רוֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מוּמְחִין הֵן תַּנָּאֵי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁאָבְדוּ לוֹ גְּדָיָיו וְתַרְנְגוֹלָיו וְהָלַךְ וּמְצָאָן שְׁחוּטִים – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי מַתִּיר. אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דְּבָרִים שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁמְּצָאָן בְּאַשְׁפָּה, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי שֶׁמְּצָאָן בְּבַיִת.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the statement: The majority of those associated with slaughter are experts, is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where one’s young goats and roosters were lost, and the owner went and found them slaughtered, Rabbi Yehuda deems the meat forbidden, and Rabbi Ḥanina, 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 Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, appears correct in a case where he found them in the house.
מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: אָמְרִינַן רוֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מוּמְחִין הֵן, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא אָמְרִינַן רוֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מוּמְחִין הֵן?
What, is it not with regard to this matter that they disagree, that one Sage, Rabbi Ḥanina, 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?
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא רוֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מוּמְחִין הֵן, וּבְבַיִת – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי, בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאָסוּר, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת: מָר סָבַר אָדָם עָשׂוּי לְהַטִּיל נִבְלָתוֹ בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת, וּמַר סָבַר אֵין אָדָם עָשׂוּי לְהַטִּיל נִבְלָתוֹ בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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 Ḥanina, holds: A person is not prone to cast his unslaughtered animal carcass onto a scrap heap that is in the house.
אָמַר מָר, אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁמְּצָאָן בְּאַשְׁפָּה. מַאי אַשְׁפָּה? אִילֵּימָא אַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבְּשׁוּק – הָא אָמְרַתְּ דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאָסוּר! אֶלָּא לָאו פְּשִׁיטָא בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת.
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, didn’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.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי שֶׁמְּצָאָן בְּבַיִת. מַאי בַּיִת? אִילֵּימָא בַּיִת מַמָּשׁ – הָאָמְרַתְּ דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת. קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי אַדְּרַבִּי!
Say the latter clause of the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: And the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina, 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, didn’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 Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, to permit the meat in that case.
הָכִי קָאָמַר: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק, שֶׁאַף רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי לֹא נֶחְלַק עָלָיו אֶלָּא בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת, אֲבָל בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ, וְנִרְאִין כּוּ׳.
The Gemara explains: This is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears correct to Rabbi Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, in a case where one found them in a scrap heap that is in a marketplace, as Rabbi Ḥanina, 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 Ḥanina, 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 Ḥanina in that case.
חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, שֶׁמָּא יְקַלְקְלוּ אֶת שְׁחִיטָתָן. ״שֶׁמָּא קִלְקְלוּ״ לָא קָתָנֵי, אֶלָּא ״שֶׁמָּא יְקַלְקְלוּ״. אָמַר רָבָא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת אֵין מוֹסְרִין לָהֶן חוּלִּין לְכַתְּחִלָּה.
§ 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.
וְכוּלָּן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וַאֲחֵרִים רוֹאִים אוֹתָם, שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה. מַאן תְּנָא דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן כַּוָּונָה לִשְׁחִיטָה?
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?
אָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי נָתָן הִיא, דְּתָנֵי אוֹשַׁעְיָא זְעֵירָא דְּמִן חַבְרַיָּא: זָרַק סַכִּין לְנוֹעֳצָהּ בַּכּוֹתֶל, וְהָלְכָה וְשָׁחֲטָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ – רַבִּי נָתָן מַכְשִׁיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין. הוּא תָּנֵי לַהּ, וְהוּא אָמַר לַהּ: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי נָתָן.
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.
וְהָא בָּעֵינַן מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא? שֶׁהָלְכָה וּבָאָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ.
The Gemara asks: How could the slaughter in the baraita be valid? But don’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 animal’s throat, caromed off the wall and came back to cut the throat again in its proper manner.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָטָן יֵשׁ לוֹ מַחְשָׁבָה, אוֹ אֵין לוֹ מַחְשָׁבָה?
§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי: וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ מַעֲשֶׂה? מַאי שְׁנָא מַעֲשֶׂה דְּלָא קָא מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ – דִּתְנַן: ״יֵשׁ לָהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה״? מַחְשָׁבָה נָמֵי לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: ״אֵין לָהֶן מַחְשָׁבָה״!
Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: And let Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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.
דִּתְנַן: הָאַלּוֹן, וְהָרִמּוֹן, וְהָאֱגוֹז שֶׁחֲקָקוּם תִּינוֹקוֹת לָמוֹד בָּהֶן עָפָר, אוֹ שֶׁהִתְקִינוּם לְכַף מֹאזְנַיִם – טְמֵאִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה,
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,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
Richmond, CA, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
Ontario, Canada
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Raanana, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
Chullin 12
פֶּסַח וְקָדָשִׁים מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּאֶפְשָׁר – אֶפְשָׁר, הֵיכָא דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר – לָא אֶפְשָׁר. הָכָא נָמֵי, הֵיכָא דְּאֶפְשָׁר – אֶפְשָׁר, הֵיכָא דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר – לָא אֶפְשָׁר.
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.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַב: רָאָה אֶחָד שֶׁשָּׁחַט, אִם רָאָהוּ מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף – מוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ.
§ Rav Naḥman 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.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּיָדַע דִּגְמִיר, לְמָה לִי רָאָה? וְאִי דְּיָדַע דְּלָא גְּמִיר, פְּשִׁיטָא!
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.
וְאֶלָּא, דְּלָא יְדַע אִי גְּמִיר אִי לָא גְּמִיר, לֵימָא: רוֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מוּמְחִין הֵן.
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.
מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁמָּצָא תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת שְׁחוּטָה בַּשּׁוּק, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ ״צֵא שְׁחוֹט״, וְהָלַךְ וּמָצָא שָׁחוּט – חֶזְקָתוֹ שָׁחוּט.
Isn’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.
אַלְמָא אָמְרִינַן: רוֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מוּמְחִין הֵן. הָכָא נָמֵי לֵימָא: רוֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מוּמְחִין הֵן!
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.
לְעוֹלָם דְּיָדַע דְּלָא גְּמִיר, וּכְגוֹן דִּשְׁחַט קַמַּן חַד סִימָן שַׁפִּיר. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִדְּהַאי שַׁפִּיר הָךְ נָמֵי שַׁפִּיר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: הַאי אִתְרְמוֹיֵי אִיתְרְמִי לֵיהּ, אִידַּךְ – שֶׁמָּא שָׁהָה שֶׁמָּא דָּרַס.
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.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב דִּימִי בַּר יוֹסֵף מֵרַב נַחְמָן: הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ ״צֵא וּשְׁחוֹט״, וְהָלַךְ וּמָצָא שָׁחוּט, מַהוּ? אָמַר לוֹ: חֶזְקָתוֹ שָׁחוּט. הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ ״צֵא וּתְרוֹם״, וְהָלַךְ וּמָצָא תָּרוּם, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין חֶזְקָתוֹ תָּרוּם.
Rav Dimi bar Yosef raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: 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 Naḥman 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 Naḥman said to him: Its presumptive status is not that teruma was separated.
מָה נַפְשָׁךְ, אִי חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ – אֲפִילּוּ תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי, וְאִי אֵין חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ – אֲפִילּוּ שְׁחִיטָה נָמֵי לָא.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְכִי תֵּיכוּל עֲלַהּ כּוֹרָא דְמִלְחָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵין חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, וּשְׁחִיטָה – אִי נָמֵי דִּילְמָא אִינָשׁ אַחֲרִינָא שְׁמַע וַאֲזַל שְׁחַט – רוֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מוּמְחִין הֵן. תְּרוּמָה – דִּילְמָא אִינָשׁ אַחֲרִינָא שְׁמַע וַאֲזַל תְּרַם, הָוֵה לֵיהּ תּוֹרֵם שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת, וְהַתּוֹרֵם שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת – אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.
Rav Naḥman 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.
לֵימָא: רוֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מוּמְחִין הֵן תַּנָּאֵי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁאָבְדוּ לוֹ גְּדָיָיו וְתַרְנְגוֹלָיו וְהָלַךְ וּמְצָאָן שְׁחוּטִים – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי מַתִּיר. אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דְּבָרִים שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁמְּצָאָן בְּאַשְׁפָּה, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי שֶׁמְּצָאָן בְּבַיִת.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the statement: The majority of those associated with slaughter are experts, is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where one’s young goats and roosters were lost, and the owner went and found them slaughtered, Rabbi Yehuda deems the meat forbidden, and Rabbi Ḥanina, 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 Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, appears correct in a case where he found them in the house.
מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: אָמְרִינַן רוֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מוּמְחִין הֵן, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא אָמְרִינַן רוֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מוּמְחִין הֵן?
What, is it not with regard to this matter that they disagree, that one Sage, Rabbi Ḥanina, 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?
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא רוֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מוּמְחִין הֵן, וּבְבַיִת – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי, בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאָסוּר, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת: מָר סָבַר אָדָם עָשׂוּי לְהַטִּיל נִבְלָתוֹ בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת, וּמַר סָבַר אֵין אָדָם עָשׂוּי לְהַטִּיל נִבְלָתוֹ בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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 Ḥanina, holds: A person is not prone to cast his unslaughtered animal carcass onto a scrap heap that is in the house.
אָמַר מָר, אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁמְּצָאָן בְּאַשְׁפָּה. מַאי אַשְׁפָּה? אִילֵּימָא אַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבְּשׁוּק – הָא אָמְרַתְּ דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאָסוּר! אֶלָּא לָאו פְּשִׁיטָא בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת.
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, didn’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.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי שֶׁמְּצָאָן בְּבַיִת. מַאי בַּיִת? אִילֵּימָא בַּיִת מַמָּשׁ – הָאָמְרַתְּ דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת. קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי אַדְּרַבִּי!
Say the latter clause of the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: And the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina, 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, didn’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 Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, to permit the meat in that case.
הָכִי קָאָמַר: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק, שֶׁאַף רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי לֹא נֶחְלַק עָלָיו אֶלָּא בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת, אֲבָל בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ, וְנִרְאִין כּוּ׳.
The Gemara explains: This is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears correct to Rabbi Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, in a case where one found them in a scrap heap that is in a marketplace, as Rabbi Ḥanina, 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 Ḥanina, 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 Ḥanina in that case.
חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, שֶׁמָּא יְקַלְקְלוּ אֶת שְׁחִיטָתָן. ״שֶׁמָּא קִלְקְלוּ״ לָא קָתָנֵי, אֶלָּא ״שֶׁמָּא יְקַלְקְלוּ״. אָמַר רָבָא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת אֵין מוֹסְרִין לָהֶן חוּלִּין לְכַתְּחִלָּה.
§ 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.
וְכוּלָּן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וַאֲחֵרִים רוֹאִים אוֹתָם, שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה. מַאן תְּנָא דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן כַּוָּונָה לִשְׁחִיטָה?
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?
אָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי נָתָן הִיא, דְּתָנֵי אוֹשַׁעְיָא זְעֵירָא דְּמִן חַבְרַיָּא: זָרַק סַכִּין לְנוֹעֳצָהּ בַּכּוֹתֶל, וְהָלְכָה וְשָׁחֲטָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ – רַבִּי נָתָן מַכְשִׁיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין. הוּא תָּנֵי לַהּ, וְהוּא אָמַר לַהּ: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי נָתָן.
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.
וְהָא בָּעֵינַן מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא? שֶׁהָלְכָה וּבָאָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ.
The Gemara asks: How could the slaughter in the baraita be valid? But don’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 animal’s throat, caromed off the wall and came back to cut the throat again in its proper manner.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָטָן יֵשׁ לוֹ מַחְשָׁבָה, אוֹ אֵין לוֹ מַחְשָׁבָה?
§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי: וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ מַעֲשֶׂה? מַאי שְׁנָא מַעֲשֶׂה דְּלָא קָא מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ – דִּתְנַן: ״יֵשׁ לָהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה״? מַחְשָׁבָה נָמֵי לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: ״אֵין לָהֶן מַחְשָׁבָה״!
Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: And let Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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.
דִּתְנַן: הָאַלּוֹן, וְהָרִמּוֹן, וְהָאֱגוֹז שֶׁחֲקָקוּם תִּינוֹקוֹת לָמוֹד בָּהֶן עָפָר, אוֹ שֶׁהִתְקִינוּם לְכַף מֹאזְנַיִם – טְמֵאִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה,
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,
