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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 10, 2018 | 讘壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 13

Can the thoughts of a minor be considered relevant? Acts of theirs that聽clearly show their intent? Acts that indicate indent but not clearly? Would there be considered only聽to be stringent or also to be lenient? What is the status of meat slaughtered by a non-Jew? By a heretic? Does one need to be concerned it was slaughtered for the sake of their gods? What is the difference between a heretic and an idol worshipper?


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

讜讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讞砖讘讛

but they do not have the capacity to effect a halakhic status by means of thought.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讙专讬讚转讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讞砖讘转讜 谞讬讻专转 诪转讜讱 诪注砖讬讜

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami: With regard to a case of effecting a halakhic status by means of thought alone, Rabbi Yo岣nan does not raise a dilemma. When he raises a dilemma, it is with regard to a case where his thought is discernible from his actions.

讻讙讜谉 讚讛讜讛 拽讬讬诪讗 注讜诇讛 讘讚专讜诐 讜讗转讬讜讛 讘爪驻讜谉 讜砖讞讟讛 诪讗讬 诪讚讗转讬讬讗 讘爪驻讜谉 讜砖讞讟 讗讬讻讜讬谉 诇讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转专诪讬 诇讬讛

For example, in a case where an animal that is brought as a burnt offering was standing in the south of the Temple courtyard and a minor took it to the north of the courtyard, the designated place for its slaughter, and slaughtered it there, what is the halakha? Can one conclude from the fact that he took it to the north and slaughtered it there that he had the intent to slaughter the animal for the sake of a burnt offering; or perhaps he moved the animal to the north because a place did not happen to be available for him in the south?

讛讗 谞诪讬 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪注诇讛 驻讬专讜转讬讜 诇讙讙 诪驻谞讬 讛讻谞讬诪讛 讜讬专讚 注诇讬讛诐 讟诇 讗讬谞谉 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讜讗诐 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讻讱 讛专讬 讛谉 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

Rabbi Ami asked: But with regard to this matter, too, Rabbi Yo岣nan already said a conclusive resolution one time, as we learned in a mishna (Makhshirin 6:1): In the case of one who takes his produce up to the roof to protect it from insects, and dew fell upon it, the produce is not in the category of the verse: 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed鈥 (Leviticus 11:38), from which it is derived that produce becomes susceptible to ritual impurity only if it is dampened by one of seven liquids and its owner was agreeable to its dampening. And if after taking the produce up to the roof he intended that the produce would be dampened by dew, the produce is in the category of the verse 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed.鈥

讛注诇讜诐 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转讻讜讜谞讜 诇讻讱 讗讬谞谉 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 诪注砖讛 讜讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讞砖讘讛

That mishna continues: In a case where a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor took the produce up to the roof, even if they intended that the produce would be dampened by dew, the produce is not in the category of the verse 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed鈥 due to the fact that they have the capacity to perform an action but they do not have the capacity for halakhically effective thought.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讛讬驻讱 讘讛谉 讗讘诇 讛讬驻讱 讘讛谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The tanna taught this halakha only in a case where the minor did not turn them over. But if he turned them over, indicating that he wants them to be dampened by the dew, the produce is in the category of the verse 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed.鈥 Evidently, Rabbi Yo岣nan rules that when the intention of a minor is apparent from his actions, it is halakhically effective.

讛讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讜 讚专讘谞谉

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami that this is the dilemma that Rabbi Yo岣nan raises: In a case where the intent of a minor is clear from his actions, is the fact that his thought is effective by Torah law or by rabbinic law? That is one version of the exchange between Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba and Rabbi Ami.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讟谉 讬砖 诇讜 诪注砖讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪注砖讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k teaches their exchange in this manner. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan raises a dilemma: With regard to a minor, does he have the capacity to perform an action that is halakhically effective or does he not have the capacity to perform such an action?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讞砖讘讛 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讞砖讘讛 诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 诪注砖讛

Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: And let Rabbi Yo岣nan raise this dilemma with regard to the thought of a minor. What is different about the thought of a minor that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 do not have the capacity for effective thought? With regard to action as well let him not raise this dilemma, as we learned in the same mishna: They have the capacity to perform an action.

讛讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讜 讚专讘谞谉 讜驻砖讬讟 讬砖 诇讛谉 诪注砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讚专讘谞谉 诪讞砖讘转讜 谞讬讻专转 诪转讜讱 诪注砖讬讜 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讚专讘谞谉 讬砖 诇讜

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami that this is the dilemma that Rabbi Yo岣nan raises: Is the fact that their actions are effective and their thought is ineffective by Torah law, and a minor鈥檚 action would consequently be effective even with regard to the sacrifice of a burnt offering, or is this fact by rabbinic law and it is merely a stringency? And Rabbi Yo岣nan resolves the dilemma: They have the capacity to perform an action and it is effective, even by Torah law. But they do not have the capacity for effective thought, even by rabbinic law. Nevertheless, in a case where his thought is apparent from his actions, by Torah law he does not have effective thought, and by rabbinic law he has effective thought.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诪转注住拽 讘拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讘谉 讛讘拽专 砖转讛讗 砖讞讬讟讛 诇砖诐 讘谉 讘拽专 讗诪专 诇讜 讝讜 讘讬讚讬谞讜 讛讬讗 诇注讻讘 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇专爪讜谞讻诐 转讝讘讞讛讜 诇讚注转讻诐 讝讘讜讞讜

Shmuel asked Rav Huna: From where is it derived with regard to one who acts unawares in the slaughter of sacrificial animals, i.e., he slaughtered without intending to perform the act of slaughter at all, that the offering is disqualified? Rav Huna said to him that it is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter the young bull鈥 (Leviticus 1:5), indicating that the slaughter must be for the sake of a young bull, i.e., knowing that he is performing an act of slaughter. Shmuel said to him: we received this as an established halakha already that one must have intent to slaughter the animal ab initio. But from where is it derived that intent to slaughter is indispensable even after the fact? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall slaughter it to your will鈥 (Leviticus 19:5), indicating: Slaughter the animal with your intent, i.e., in the form of a purposeful action.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讞讬讟转 谞讻专讬 谞讘诇讛 讜诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪砖讗

MISHNA: Slaughter performed by a gentile renders the animal an unslaughtered carcass, and the carcass imparts ritual impurity through carrying.

讙诪壮 谞讘诇讛 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛 诇讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗诪专 住转诐 诪讞砖讘转 谞讻专讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

GEMARA: The slaughter renders the animal an unslaughtered carcass, yes; an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited, no. Who is the tanna who taught the mishna? Rabbi 岣yya, son of Rabbi Abba, said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, doesn鈥檛 he say: The unspecified thought of a gentile is for idol worship.

专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 砖讞讬讟转 谞讻专讬 谞讘诇讛 讛讗 讚诪讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讞讬讟转 诪讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻讬转讜 驻转 讻讜转讬 讬讬谞讜 讬讬谉 谞住讱 住驻专讬讜 住驻专讬 拽讜住诪讬谉 驻讬专讜转讬讜 讟讘诇讬谉 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝

Rabbi Ami said that this is what the mishna is teaching: Slaughter performed by a gentile renders the animal an unslaughtered carcass, but slaughter performed by a heretic is for the sake of idol worship. The Gemara notes: We learn from an inference in the mishna that which the Sages taught explictly in a baraita: Slaughter performed by a heretic is for the sake of idol worship and deriving benefit from it is prohibited, the halakhic status of his bread is that of the bread of a Samaritan, the status of his wine is that of wine used for a libation in idol worship, his sacred scrolls that he writes are the scrolls of sorcerers and it is a mitzva to burn them, his produce is untithed produce even if he separated teruma and tithes, and some say: Even

讘谞讬讜 诪诪讝专讬谉

his sons are mamzerim, as he is indifferent to his wife鈥檚 engaging in adultery.

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗砖转讜 诇讗 诪驻拽专

The Gemara asks: And the first tanna, why did he not include the ruling that the sons of a heretic are mamzerim? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, a heretic does not release his wife and allow her to engage in adultery.

讗诪专 诪专 砖讞讬讟转 谞讻专讬 谞讘诇讛 讜谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 诪讬谉 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗讬谉 诪讬谞讬谉 讘讗讜诪讜转

The Master said in the mishna: Slaughter performed by a gentile renders the animal an unslaughtered carcass. The Gemara challenges this: And let us be concerned that perhaps he is a heretic who is a devout idolater and deriving benefit from his slaughter is prohibited. Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh says: There are no such heretics among the nations of the world.

讜讛讗 拽讗讞讝讬谞谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谉 专讜讘 讗讜诪讜转 诪讬谞讬谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讜讬诐 砖讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗讜 注讜讘讚讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛谉 讗诇讗 诪谞讛讙 讗讘讜转讬讛谉 讘讬讚讬讛谉

The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we see that there are? The Gemara answers: Say the majority of the people of the nations of the world are not heretics, and with regard to slaughter one follows the majority. The Gemara notes: Rabba bar Avuh holds in accordance with that which Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The status of gentiles outside of Eretz Yisrael is not that of idol worshippers, as their worship is not motivated by faith and devotion. Rather, it is a traditional custom of their ancestors that was transmitted to them.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讬谞讬谉 讘讗讜诪讜转 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讛砖转讗 砖讞讬讟转 诪讬谉 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专转 讗住讬专讗 讚讙讜讬 诪讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讛砖转讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讚讙讜讬诐 诪讘注讬讗

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an says: There are no heretics among the nations of the world, i.e., gentile heretics do not have the halakhic status of actual heretics. The Gemara asks: With regard to what matter did Rav Na岣an state the halakha? If we say that it is with regard to slaughter, now that you said the slaughter of a Jewish heretic is forbidden, is it necessary to say the slaughter of a gentile heretic is forbidden? Rather, it is with regard to the halakha that one lowers them into a pit, i.e., one may kill a heretic, and Rav Na岣an holds that one may not kill them. But this too is difficult, as now if one lowers a Jewish heretic into a pit, is it necessary to say that one lowers a gentile heretic?

讗诪专 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 诇拽讘诇 诪讛谉 拽专讘谉 讚转谞讬讗 诪讻诐 讜诇讗 讻讜诇讻诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪砖讜诪讚 诪讻诐 讘讻诐 讞诇拽转讬 讜诇讗 讘讗讜诪讜转

Rav Ukva bar 岣ma said: It is stated with regard to accepting an offering from them, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淲hen any person of you shall bring an offering鈥 (Leviticus 1:2): The verse states: 鈥淥f you,鈥 and not: Of all of you, to exclude the Jewish transgressor who regularly violates a prohibition. Furthermore, God states: 鈥淥f you,鈥 to mean that among you, the Jews, I distinguished between a transgressor and other Jews, but not among the nations. One accepts an offering from all gentiles, even a heretic.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讬砖专讗诇 诪爪讚讬拽讬 拽讘诇 诪专砖讬注讬 诇讗 转拽讘诇 讗讘诇 讘讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讻诇诇 讻诇诇 诇讗 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讛讙讜讬诐 砖谞讜讚专讬诐 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讻讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara asks: From where do you draw that conclusion? Perhaps this is what the verse is saying: With regard to offerings from Jews, from righteous Jews accept the offering and from wicked Jews do not accept the offering; but with regard to the nations of the world, do not accept their offerings at all. The Gemara rejects that possibility: That should not enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎ny man [ish ish] from the house of Israel鈥ho shall sacrifice his offering鈥 (Leviticus 22:18): Since it would have been sufficient to write: A man [ish], what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎ny man [ish ish]鈥? It serves to include the gentiles, who may vow to bring vow offerings and gift offerings like a Jew.

讜诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪砖讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚谞讘诇讛 讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪砖讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讝讜 诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪砖讗 讜讬砖 诇讱 讗讞专转 砖讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讛诇 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗

搂 The mishna states with regard to an animal slaughtered by a gentile: And the carcass imparts ritual impurity through carrying. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious? Since it is considered an unslaughtered carcass it imparts ritual impurity through carrying. Rava said that this is what the tanna is teaching: This slaughtered animal imparts ritual impurity through carrying, and you have another animal that imparts impurity even in a tent, i.e., if one is beneath the same roof with this animal he becomes impure even though he neither touched it nor carried it. And which animal is that? That animal is an idolatrous offering, and this statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira cited below.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讝讜 诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪砖讗 讜讬砖 诇讱 讗讞专转 砖讛讬讗 讻讝讜 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪砖讗 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讛诇 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗

There are those who say an alternative version of Rava鈥檚 statement: Rava said that this is what the tanna is teaching: This slaughtered animal imparts ritual impurity through carrying, and you have another animal that is like this one in that it imparts ritual impurity through carrying and does not impart impurity in a tent. And which animal is this? This animal is an idolatrous offering, and this statement is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讛诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪诪讚讜 诇讘注诇 驻注讜专 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讝讘讞讬 诪转讬诐 诪讛 诪转 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讗祝 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讛诇

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived with regard to an idolatrous offering that it imparts impurity in a tent? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淭hey adhered to Ba鈥檃l-Peor and ate the offerings to the dead鈥 (Psalms 106:28). Just as a corpse imparts impurity in a tent, so too an idolatrous offering imparts impurity in a tent.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讻谉 讛住讜诪讗 砖砖讞讟 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal at night, and likewise in the case of the blind person who slaughters an animal, his slaughter is valid.

讙诪壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讘讬谉 讘专讗砖 讛讙讙 讘讬谉 讘专讗砖 讛住驻讬谞讛

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the formulation of the mishna: One who slaughters, and not: One may slaughter, that with regard to the slaughter of one who slaughters at night, after the fact, yes, it is valid, but ab initio, one may not do so. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita (Tosefta 1:4): One may always slaughter, both during the day and at night, both on the rooftop and atop a ship, indicating that slaughter at night is permitted ab initio.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘砖讗讘讜拽讛 讻谞讙讚讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛转诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讬讜诐 讜讛讻讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚住讜诪讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Pappa said: The tanna of the baraita is referring to a case where there is a torch opposite the slaughterer; therefore, it is permitted ab initio. Rav Ashi said: The language of the baraita is also precise, as slaughter at night is taught there in the baraita similar to slaughter during the day, based on the juxtaposition: Both during the day and at night. And here slaughter at night is taught similar to the slaughter performed by a blind person, with no light, based on the juxtaposition: One who slaughters at night, and likewise the blind person who slaughters. Therefore, the slaughter is valid only after the fact. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 13

讜讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讞砖讘讛

but they do not have the capacity to effect a halakhic status by means of thought.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讙专讬讚转讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讞砖讘转讜 谞讬讻专转 诪转讜讱 诪注砖讬讜

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami: With regard to a case of effecting a halakhic status by means of thought alone, Rabbi Yo岣nan does not raise a dilemma. When he raises a dilemma, it is with regard to a case where his thought is discernible from his actions.

讻讙讜谉 讚讛讜讛 拽讬讬诪讗 注讜诇讛 讘讚专讜诐 讜讗转讬讜讛 讘爪驻讜谉 讜砖讞讟讛 诪讗讬 诪讚讗转讬讬讗 讘爪驻讜谉 讜砖讞讟 讗讬讻讜讬谉 诇讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转专诪讬 诇讬讛

For example, in a case where an animal that is brought as a burnt offering was standing in the south of the Temple courtyard and a minor took it to the north of the courtyard, the designated place for its slaughter, and slaughtered it there, what is the halakha? Can one conclude from the fact that he took it to the north and slaughtered it there that he had the intent to slaughter the animal for the sake of a burnt offering; or perhaps he moved the animal to the north because a place did not happen to be available for him in the south?

讛讗 谞诪讬 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪注诇讛 驻讬专讜转讬讜 诇讙讙 诪驻谞讬 讛讻谞讬诪讛 讜讬专讚 注诇讬讛诐 讟诇 讗讬谞谉 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讜讗诐 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讻讱 讛专讬 讛谉 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

Rabbi Ami asked: But with regard to this matter, too, Rabbi Yo岣nan already said a conclusive resolution one time, as we learned in a mishna (Makhshirin 6:1): In the case of one who takes his produce up to the roof to protect it from insects, and dew fell upon it, the produce is not in the category of the verse: 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed鈥 (Leviticus 11:38), from which it is derived that produce becomes susceptible to ritual impurity only if it is dampened by one of seven liquids and its owner was agreeable to its dampening. And if after taking the produce up to the roof he intended that the produce would be dampened by dew, the produce is in the category of the verse 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed.鈥

讛注诇讜诐 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转讻讜讜谞讜 诇讻讱 讗讬谞谉 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 诪注砖讛 讜讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讞砖讘讛

That mishna continues: In a case where a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor took the produce up to the roof, even if they intended that the produce would be dampened by dew, the produce is not in the category of the verse 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed鈥 due to the fact that they have the capacity to perform an action but they do not have the capacity for halakhically effective thought.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讛讬驻讱 讘讛谉 讗讘诇 讛讬驻讱 讘讛谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The tanna taught this halakha only in a case where the minor did not turn them over. But if he turned them over, indicating that he wants them to be dampened by the dew, the produce is in the category of the verse 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed.鈥 Evidently, Rabbi Yo岣nan rules that when the intention of a minor is apparent from his actions, it is halakhically effective.

讛讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讜 讚专讘谞谉

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami that this is the dilemma that Rabbi Yo岣nan raises: In a case where the intent of a minor is clear from his actions, is the fact that his thought is effective by Torah law or by rabbinic law? That is one version of the exchange between Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba and Rabbi Ami.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讟谉 讬砖 诇讜 诪注砖讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪注砖讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k teaches their exchange in this manner. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan raises a dilemma: With regard to a minor, does he have the capacity to perform an action that is halakhically effective or does he not have the capacity to perform such an action?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讞砖讘讛 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讞砖讘讛 诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 诪注砖讛

Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: And let Rabbi Yo岣nan raise this dilemma with regard to the thought of a minor. What is different about the thought of a minor that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 do not have the capacity for effective thought? With regard to action as well let him not raise this dilemma, as we learned in the same mishna: They have the capacity to perform an action.

讛讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讜 讚专讘谞谉 讜驻砖讬讟 讬砖 诇讛谉 诪注砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讚专讘谞谉 诪讞砖讘转讜 谞讬讻专转 诪转讜讱 诪注砖讬讜 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讚专讘谞谉 讬砖 诇讜

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami that this is the dilemma that Rabbi Yo岣nan raises: Is the fact that their actions are effective and their thought is ineffective by Torah law, and a minor鈥檚 action would consequently be effective even with regard to the sacrifice of a burnt offering, or is this fact by rabbinic law and it is merely a stringency? And Rabbi Yo岣nan resolves the dilemma: They have the capacity to perform an action and it is effective, even by Torah law. But they do not have the capacity for effective thought, even by rabbinic law. Nevertheless, in a case where his thought is apparent from his actions, by Torah law he does not have effective thought, and by rabbinic law he has effective thought.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诪转注住拽 讘拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讘谉 讛讘拽专 砖转讛讗 砖讞讬讟讛 诇砖诐 讘谉 讘拽专 讗诪专 诇讜 讝讜 讘讬讚讬谞讜 讛讬讗 诇注讻讘 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇专爪讜谞讻诐 转讝讘讞讛讜 诇讚注转讻诐 讝讘讜讞讜

Shmuel asked Rav Huna: From where is it derived with regard to one who acts unawares in the slaughter of sacrificial animals, i.e., he slaughtered without intending to perform the act of slaughter at all, that the offering is disqualified? Rav Huna said to him that it is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter the young bull鈥 (Leviticus 1:5), indicating that the slaughter must be for the sake of a young bull, i.e., knowing that he is performing an act of slaughter. Shmuel said to him: we received this as an established halakha already that one must have intent to slaughter the animal ab initio. But from where is it derived that intent to slaughter is indispensable even after the fact? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall slaughter it to your will鈥 (Leviticus 19:5), indicating: Slaughter the animal with your intent, i.e., in the form of a purposeful action.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讞讬讟转 谞讻专讬 谞讘诇讛 讜诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪砖讗

MISHNA: Slaughter performed by a gentile renders the animal an unslaughtered carcass, and the carcass imparts ritual impurity through carrying.

讙诪壮 谞讘诇讛 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛 诇讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗诪专 住转诐 诪讞砖讘转 谞讻专讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

GEMARA: The slaughter renders the animal an unslaughtered carcass, yes; an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited, no. Who is the tanna who taught the mishna? Rabbi 岣yya, son of Rabbi Abba, said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, doesn鈥檛 he say: The unspecified thought of a gentile is for idol worship.

专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 砖讞讬讟转 谞讻专讬 谞讘诇讛 讛讗 讚诪讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讞讬讟转 诪讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻讬转讜 驻转 讻讜转讬 讬讬谞讜 讬讬谉 谞住讱 住驻专讬讜 住驻专讬 拽讜住诪讬谉 驻讬专讜转讬讜 讟讘诇讬谉 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝

Rabbi Ami said that this is what the mishna is teaching: Slaughter performed by a gentile renders the animal an unslaughtered carcass, but slaughter performed by a heretic is for the sake of idol worship. The Gemara notes: We learn from an inference in the mishna that which the Sages taught explictly in a baraita: Slaughter performed by a heretic is for the sake of idol worship and deriving benefit from it is prohibited, the halakhic status of his bread is that of the bread of a Samaritan, the status of his wine is that of wine used for a libation in idol worship, his sacred scrolls that he writes are the scrolls of sorcerers and it is a mitzva to burn them, his produce is untithed produce even if he separated teruma and tithes, and some say: Even

讘谞讬讜 诪诪讝专讬谉

his sons are mamzerim, as he is indifferent to his wife鈥檚 engaging in adultery.

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗砖转讜 诇讗 诪驻拽专

The Gemara asks: And the first tanna, why did he not include the ruling that the sons of a heretic are mamzerim? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, a heretic does not release his wife and allow her to engage in adultery.

讗诪专 诪专 砖讞讬讟转 谞讻专讬 谞讘诇讛 讜谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 诪讬谉 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗讬谉 诪讬谞讬谉 讘讗讜诪讜转

The Master said in the mishna: Slaughter performed by a gentile renders the animal an unslaughtered carcass. The Gemara challenges this: And let us be concerned that perhaps he is a heretic who is a devout idolater and deriving benefit from his slaughter is prohibited. Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh says: There are no such heretics among the nations of the world.

讜讛讗 拽讗讞讝讬谞谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谉 专讜讘 讗讜诪讜转 诪讬谞讬谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讜讬诐 砖讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗讜 注讜讘讚讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛谉 讗诇讗 诪谞讛讙 讗讘讜转讬讛谉 讘讬讚讬讛谉

The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we see that there are? The Gemara answers: Say the majority of the people of the nations of the world are not heretics, and with regard to slaughter one follows the majority. The Gemara notes: Rabba bar Avuh holds in accordance with that which Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The status of gentiles outside of Eretz Yisrael is not that of idol worshippers, as their worship is not motivated by faith and devotion. Rather, it is a traditional custom of their ancestors that was transmitted to them.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讬谞讬谉 讘讗讜诪讜转 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讛砖转讗 砖讞讬讟转 诪讬谉 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专转 讗住讬专讗 讚讙讜讬 诪讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讛砖转讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讚讙讜讬诐 诪讘注讬讗

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an says: There are no heretics among the nations of the world, i.e., gentile heretics do not have the halakhic status of actual heretics. The Gemara asks: With regard to what matter did Rav Na岣an state the halakha? If we say that it is with regard to slaughter, now that you said the slaughter of a Jewish heretic is forbidden, is it necessary to say the slaughter of a gentile heretic is forbidden? Rather, it is with regard to the halakha that one lowers them into a pit, i.e., one may kill a heretic, and Rav Na岣an holds that one may not kill them. But this too is difficult, as now if one lowers a Jewish heretic into a pit, is it necessary to say that one lowers a gentile heretic?

讗诪专 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 诇拽讘诇 诪讛谉 拽专讘谉 讚转谞讬讗 诪讻诐 讜诇讗 讻讜诇讻诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪砖讜诪讚 诪讻诐 讘讻诐 讞诇拽转讬 讜诇讗 讘讗讜诪讜转

Rav Ukva bar 岣ma said: It is stated with regard to accepting an offering from them, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淲hen any person of you shall bring an offering鈥 (Leviticus 1:2): The verse states: 鈥淥f you,鈥 and not: Of all of you, to exclude the Jewish transgressor who regularly violates a prohibition. Furthermore, God states: 鈥淥f you,鈥 to mean that among you, the Jews, I distinguished between a transgressor and other Jews, but not among the nations. One accepts an offering from all gentiles, even a heretic.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讬砖专讗诇 诪爪讚讬拽讬 拽讘诇 诪专砖讬注讬 诇讗 转拽讘诇 讗讘诇 讘讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讻诇诇 讻诇诇 诇讗 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讛讙讜讬诐 砖谞讜讚专讬诐 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讻讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara asks: From where do you draw that conclusion? Perhaps this is what the verse is saying: With regard to offerings from Jews, from righteous Jews accept the offering and from wicked Jews do not accept the offering; but with regard to the nations of the world, do not accept their offerings at all. The Gemara rejects that possibility: That should not enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎ny man [ish ish] from the house of Israel鈥ho shall sacrifice his offering鈥 (Leviticus 22:18): Since it would have been sufficient to write: A man [ish], what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎ny man [ish ish]鈥? It serves to include the gentiles, who may vow to bring vow offerings and gift offerings like a Jew.

讜诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪砖讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚谞讘诇讛 讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪砖讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讝讜 诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪砖讗 讜讬砖 诇讱 讗讞专转 砖讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讛诇 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗

搂 The mishna states with regard to an animal slaughtered by a gentile: And the carcass imparts ritual impurity through carrying. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious? Since it is considered an unslaughtered carcass it imparts ritual impurity through carrying. Rava said that this is what the tanna is teaching: This slaughtered animal imparts ritual impurity through carrying, and you have another animal that imparts impurity even in a tent, i.e., if one is beneath the same roof with this animal he becomes impure even though he neither touched it nor carried it. And which animal is that? That animal is an idolatrous offering, and this statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira cited below.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讝讜 诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪砖讗 讜讬砖 诇讱 讗讞专转 砖讛讬讗 讻讝讜 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪砖讗 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讛诇 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗

There are those who say an alternative version of Rava鈥檚 statement: Rava said that this is what the tanna is teaching: This slaughtered animal imparts ritual impurity through carrying, and you have another animal that is like this one in that it imparts ritual impurity through carrying and does not impart impurity in a tent. And which animal is this? This animal is an idolatrous offering, and this statement is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讛诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪诪讚讜 诇讘注诇 驻注讜专 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讝讘讞讬 诪转讬诐 诪讛 诪转 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讗祝 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讛诇

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived with regard to an idolatrous offering that it imparts impurity in a tent? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淭hey adhered to Ba鈥檃l-Peor and ate the offerings to the dead鈥 (Psalms 106:28). Just as a corpse imparts impurity in a tent, so too an idolatrous offering imparts impurity in a tent.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讻谉 讛住讜诪讗 砖砖讞讟 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal at night, and likewise in the case of the blind person who slaughters an animal, his slaughter is valid.

讙诪壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讘讬谉 讘专讗砖 讛讙讙 讘讬谉 讘专讗砖 讛住驻讬谞讛

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the formulation of the mishna: One who slaughters, and not: One may slaughter, that with regard to the slaughter of one who slaughters at night, after the fact, yes, it is valid, but ab initio, one may not do so. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita (Tosefta 1:4): One may always slaughter, both during the day and at night, both on the rooftop and atop a ship, indicating that slaughter at night is permitted ab initio.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘砖讗讘讜拽讛 讻谞讙讚讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛转诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讬讜诐 讜讛讻讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚住讜诪讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Pappa said: The tanna of the baraita is referring to a case where there is a torch opposite the slaughterer; therefore, it is permitted ab initio. Rav Ashi said: The language of the baraita is also precise, as slaughter at night is taught there in the baraita similar to slaughter during the day, based on the juxtaposition: Both during the day and at night. And here slaughter at night is taught similar to the slaughter performed by a blind person, with no light, based on the juxtaposition: One who slaughters at night, and likewise the blind person who slaughters. Therefore, the slaughter is valid only after the fact. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it.

Scroll To Top