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 week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick in loving memory of her mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, לאה בת יהודה לייב חייקל וחיה מאשה. “She infused her many descendants with her love for Torah, Israel and the Jewish people.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Elana and Daniel Storch in honor of their youngest daughter Arianne Yael’s engagement to Brett Aiken and for a for a refuah shleima for Ilana Malka bat Aviva Tamar and Leah Maritza bat Raizel. “We are thrilled to share besorot tovot with our Hadran Family. We pray that the chuppah will take place בשעה טובה ומוצלחת and they should be zoche to build a בית נאמן בישראל.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Rabbi Chiya bar Abba recounts a discussion between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yochanan regarding the legal weight of a minor’s intent. In the first version, the question is whether a minor’s thoughts alone are significant. Rabbi Ami argues it is obvious they are not, citing a Mishna in Kelim 17:15. Rabbi Yochanan clarifies that the doubt applies when a minor’s action reasonably demonstrates their intent, but not completely – such as moving an animal to the northern part of the Temple courtyard, the specific area for slaughtering burnt offerings. Rabbi Ami challenges this, noting that Rabbi Yochanan himself previously ruled in the context of ritual impurity that a minor’s action is significant when the minor’s intent is reasonably clear from the action. Rabbi Yochanan responds that his question was whether such actions are valid by Torah law or only by Rabbinic decree; the matter remains unresolved.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak offers a different version of the discussion, focusing on whether a minor’s actions are effective. This version concludes with Rabbi Yochanan distinguishing between three categories: actions with clear intent, actions with reasonably clear, but not completely clear intent, and intent without any accompanying action.
Shmuel asks Rav Huna for the biblical source disqualifying sacrifices that were slaughtered without the specific intent to perform a slaughter (mitasek).
The Mishna rules that meat slaughtered by a non-Jew is considered neveila (a carcass) and imparts impurity by carrying (masa). Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Ami draw different inferences from this. Rabbi Yochanan suggests the Mishna follows the Sages (against Rabbi Eliezer) in assuming that gentiles do not automatically slaughter for idolatrous purposes; if they did, the meat would be forbidden even for benefit. Rabbi Ami infers that the slaughter of a heretic (min), one who is a devout idol worshipped is strictly forbidden for any benefit, a position supported by a braita.
The Gemara explains that we generally do not fear a gentile will slaughter for idolatry because they are typically not devout in their practice. However, a min is considered deeply dedicated to their worship, and their slaughter is presumed to be for an idol. Rav Nachman distinguishes between Jewish heretics and gentile heretics, showing more leniency toward the latter, though the Gemara clarifies this applies specifically to accepting their sacrifices.
The shechita of one who slaughters in the dark or a blind person is accepted.
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 week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick in loving memory of her mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, לאה בת יהודה לייב חייקל וחיה מאשה. “She infused her many descendants with her love for Torah, Israel and the Jewish people.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Elana and Daniel Storch in honor of their youngest daughter Arianne Yael’s engagement to Brett Aiken and for a for a refuah shleima for Ilana Malka bat Aviva Tamar and Leah Maritza bat Raizel. “We are thrilled to share besorot tovot with our Hadran Family. We pray that the chuppah will take place בשעה טובה ומוצלחת and they should be zoche to build a בית נאמן בישראל.
Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Dickson in honor of Audrey Levant on her birthday! “This time next year please God you will be just weeks away from celebrating your Siyum HaShas! Happy birthday!”
Chullin 13
וְאֵין לָהֶן מַחְשָׁבָה.
but they do not have the capacity to effect a halakhic status by means of thought.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַחְשָׁבָה גְּרֵידְתָּא לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ – מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ נִיכֶּרֶת מִתּוֹךְ מַעֲשָׂיו.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami: With regard to a case of effecting a halakhic status by means of thought alone, Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
כְּגוֹן דַּהֲוָה קָיְימָא עוֹלָה בַּדָּרוֹם, וְאַתְיַיהּ בַּצָּפוֹן וְשַׁחְטַהּ, מַאי? מִדְּאַתְיַיהּ בַּצָּפוֹן וְשַׁחְטַהּ אִיכַּוֵּין לַהּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא מָקוֹם הוּא דְּלָא אִיתְרְמִי לֵיהּ?
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?
הָא נָמֵי אַמְרַהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן חֲדָא זִימְנָא, דִּתְנַן: הַמַּעֲלֶה פֵּירוֹתָיו לַגַּג מִפְּנֵי הַכְּנִימָה, וְיָרַד עֲלֵיהֶם טַל – אֵינָן בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״, וְאִם נִתְכַּוֵּין לְכָךְ – הֲרֵי הֵן בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״.
Rabbi Ami asked: But with regard to this matter, too, Rabbi Yoḥanan 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: “But when water is placed upon the seed” (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 “But when water is placed upon the seed.”
הֶעֱלוּם חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְכַּוְּונוּ לְכָךְ, אֵינָן בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין לָהֶן מַחְשָׁבָה.
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 “But when water is placed upon the seed” due to the fact that they have the capacity to perform an action but they do not have the capacity for halakhically effective thought.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא הִיפֵּךְ בָּהֶן, אֲבָל הִיפֵּךְ בָּהֶן – הֲרֵי זֶה בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 “But when water is placed upon the seed.” Evidently, Rabbi Yoḥanan rules that when the intention of a minor is apparent from his actions, it is halakhically effective.
הָכִי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אוֹ דְּרַבָּנַן?
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami that this is the dilemma that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Ami.
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק מַתְנֵי הָכִי: אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָטָן יֵשׁ לוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אוֹ אֵין לוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה?
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak teaches their exchange in this manner. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי: וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ מַחְשָׁבָה! מַאי שְׁנָא מַחְשָׁבָה דְּלָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? דִּתְנַן: אֵין לָהֶן מַחְשָׁבָה. מַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: יֵשׁ לָהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה.
Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: And let Rabbi Yoḥanan raise this dilemma with regard to the thought of a minor. What is different about the thought 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 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.
הָכִי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אוֹ דְּרַבָּנַן? וּפָשֵׁיט: יֵשׁ לָהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֵין לָהֶן מַחְשָׁבָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִדְּרַבָּנַן. מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ נִיכֶּרֶת מִתּוֹךְ מַעֲשָׂיו – מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אֵין לוֹ, מִדְּרַבָּנַן יֵשׁ לוֹ.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami that this is the dilemma that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises: Is the fact that their actions are effective and their thought is ineffective by Torah law, and a minor’s 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 Yoḥanan 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.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל מֵרַב הוּנָא: מִנַּיִן לַמִּתְעַסֵּק בְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר״, שֶׁתְּהֵא שְׁחִיטָה לְשֵׁם בֶּן בָּקָר. אָמַר לוֹ: זוֹ בְּיָדֵינוּ הִיא, לְעַכֵּב מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לִרְצוֹנְכֶם תִּזְבָּחֻהוּ״, לְדַעְתְּכֶם זְבוּחוּ.
§ 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: “And he shall slaughter the young bull” (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: “You shall slaughter it to your will” (Leviticus 19:5), indicating: Slaughter the animal with your intent, i.e., in the form of a purposeful action.
מַתְנִי׳ שְׁחִיטַת נׇכְרִי נְבֵלָה, וּמְטַמְּאָה בְּמַשָּׂא.
MISHNA: Slaughter performed by a gentile renders the animal an unslaughtered carcass, and the carcass imparts ritual impurity through carrying.
גְּמָ׳ נְבֵלָה – אִין, אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה – לָא. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בְּרַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאִי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – הָאָמַר: סְתָם מַחְשֶׁבֶת נׇכְרִי לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.
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 Ḥiyya, son of Rabbi Abba, said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’t he say: The unspecified thought of a gentile is for idol worship.
רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר: הָכִי קָתָנֵי, שְׁחִיטַת נׇכְרִי – נְבֵלָה, הָא דְּמִין – לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁחִיטַת מִין לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, פִּיתּוֹ – פַּת כּוּתִי, יֵינוֹ – יֵין נֶסֶךְ, סְפָרָיו – סִפְרֵי קוֹסְמִין, פֵּירוֹתָיו – טְבָלִין, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף
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
בָּנָיו מַמְזֵרִין.
his sons are mamzerim, as he is indifferent to his wife’s engaging in adultery.
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא, אִשְׁתּוֹ לָא מַפְקַר.
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.
אָמַר מָר: שְׁחִיטַת נׇכְרִי נְבֵלָה, וְנֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא מִין הוּא? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: אֵין מִינִין בָּאוּמּוֹת.
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 Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh says: There are no such heretics among the nations of the world.
וְהָא קָאחָזֵינַן דְּאִיכָּא? אֵימָא: אֵין רוֹב אוּמּוֹת מִינִין, סָבַר לַהּ כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גּוֹיִם שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לְאָרֶץ לָאו עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֵן, אֶלָּא מִנְהַג אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן בִּידֵיהֶן.
The Gemara asks: But don’t 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 Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אֵין מִינִין בָּאוּמּוֹת. לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לִשְׁחִיטָה, הַשְׁתָּא שְׁחִיטַת מִין דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אָמְרַתְּ אֲסִירָא, דְּגוֹי מִבַּעְיָא? אֶלָּא לְמוֹרִידִין, הַשְׁתָּא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹרִידִין, דְּגוֹיִם מִבַּעְיָא?
Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman 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 Naḥman 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 Naḥman 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?
אָמַר רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: לְקַבֵּל מֵהֶן קׇרְבָּן, דְּתַנְיָא: ״מִכֶּם״ וְלֹא כּוּלְּכֶם, לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמְשׁוּמָּד, ״מִכֶּם״ – בָּכֶם חִלַּקְתִּי וְלֹא בָּאוּמּוֹת.
Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: It is stated with regard to accepting an offering from them, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “When any person of you shall bring an offering” (Leviticus 1:2): The verse states: “Of you,” and not: Of all of you, to exclude the Jewish transgressor who regularly violates a prohibition. Furthermore, God states: “Of you,” 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.
מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר: מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל – מִצַּדִּיקֵי קַבֵּל, מֵרַשִּׁיעֵי לָא תְּקַבֵּל, אֲבָל בְּאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם – כְּלָל כְּלָל לָא! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִישׁ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״? לְרַבּוֹת הַגּוֹיִם, שֶׁנּוֹדְרִים נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
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: “Any man [ish ish] from the house of Israel…who shall sacrifice his offering” (Leviticus 22:18): Since it would have been sufficient to write: A man [ish], what is the meaning when the verse states: “Any man [ish ish]”? It serves to include the gentiles, who may vow to bring vow offerings and gift offerings like a Jew.
וּמְטַמְּאָה בְּמַשָּׂא. פְּשִׁיטָא, כֵּיוָן דִּנְבֵלָה הִיא מְטַמְּאָה בְּמַשָּׂא! אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָתָנֵי, זוֹ מְטַמְּאָה בְּמַשָּׂא, וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אַחֶרֶת שֶׁהִיא מְטַמְּאָה אֲפִילּוּ בְּאֹהֶל, וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ? תִּקְרוֹבֶת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וּכְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא.
§ The mishna states with regard to an animal slaughtered by a gentile: And the carcass imparts ritual impurity through carrying. The Gemara asks: Isn’t 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.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָתָנֵי, זוֹ מְטַמְּאָה בְּמַשָּׂא, וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אַחֶרֶת שֶׁהִיא כָּזוֹ שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה בְּמַשָּׂא וְאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְּאֹהֶל, וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ? תִּקְרוֹבֶת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא.
There are those who say an alternative version of Rava’s 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.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְתִקְרוֹבֶת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁהִיא מְטַמְּאָה בְּאֹהֶל? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּצָּמְדוּ לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר וַיֹּאכְלוּ זִבְחֵי מֵתִים״, מָה מֵת מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל, אַף תִּקְרוֹבֶת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מְטַמְּאָה בְּאֹהֶל.
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: “They adhered to Ba’al-Peor and ate the offerings to the dead” (Psalms 106:28). Just as a corpse imparts impurity in a tent, so too an idolatrous offering imparts impurity in a tent.
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט בַּלַּיְלָה, וְכֵן הַסּוֹמֵא שֶׁשָּׁחַט – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה.
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.
גְּמָ׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט דִּיעֲבַד – אִין, לְכַתְּחִלָּה – לָא. וּרְמִינְהִי: לְעוֹלָם שׁוֹחֲטִין, בֵּין בַּיּוֹם וּבֵין בַּלַּיְלָה, בֵּין בְּרֹאשׁ הַגָּג בֵּין בְּרֹאשׁ הַסְּפִינָה!
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.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּשֶׁאֲבוּקָה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי הָתָם דּוּמְיָא דְּיוֹם, וְהָכָא דּוּמְיָא דְּסוֹמֵא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
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.
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.
Richmond, CA, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
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
Bronx, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
Raanana, Israel
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
Philadelphia, United States
Chullin 13
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧ.
but they do not have the capacity to effect a halakhic status by means of thought.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦΆΦΌΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ° ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧ.
Rabbi αΈ€iyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami: With regard to a case of effecting a halakhic status by means of thought alone, Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ€ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ€ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ?
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?
ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦΆΧ Χ€Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ΄ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ° β ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ΄ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΧ΄.
Rabbi Ami asked: But with regard to this matter, too, Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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: βBut when water is placed upon the seedβ (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 βBut when water is placed upon the seed.β
ΧΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΅Χ©Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°, ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ΄ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΧ΄, ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧ.
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 βBut when water is placed upon the seedβ due to the fact that they have the capacity to perform an action but they do not have the capacity for halakhically effective thought.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ΅ΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ΅ΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ΄ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΧ΄.
And Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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 βBut when water is placed upon the seed.β Evidently, Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan rules that when the intention of a minor is apparent from his actions, it is halakhically effective.
ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ?
Rabbi αΈ€iyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami that this is the dilemma that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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 αΈ€iyya bar Abba and Rabbi Ami.
Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ?
Rav NaαΈ₯man bar YitzαΈ₯ak teaches their exchange in this manner. Rabbi αΈ€iyya bar Abba says that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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?
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ: ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ.
Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi αΈ€iyya bar Abba: And let Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan raise this dilemma with regard to the thought of a minor. What is different about the thought of a minor that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ? ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ: ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ. ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦΆΦΌΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ° ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΧΦΉ.
Rabbi αΈ€iyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami that this is the dilemma that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan raises: Is the fact that their actions are effective and their thought is ineffective by Torah law, and a minorβs 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 YoαΈ₯anan 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.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ‘Φ΅ΦΌΧ§ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ? Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧ¨Χ΄, Χ©ΦΆΧΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧ¨. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ: ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ¦ΧΦΉΧ Φ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ»ΧΧΦΌΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΧΦΌ.
Β§ 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: βAnd he shall slaughter the young bullβ (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: βYou shall slaughter it to your willβ (Leviticus 19:5), indicating: Slaughter the animal with your intent, i.e., in the form of a purposeful action.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ Χ ΧΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ Χ Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ.
MISHNA: Slaughter performed by a gentile renders the animal an unslaughtered carcass, and the carcass imparts ritual impurity through carrying.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ Χ Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ β ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΆΧͺ Χ ΧΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
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 αΈ€iyya, son of Rabbi Abba, said that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan said: It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, doesnβt he say: The unspecified thought of a gentile is for idol worship.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ, Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ Χ ΧΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ β Χ Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧͺΦΌΧΦΉ β Χ€Φ·ΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧͺΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ ΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧΦ°, Χ‘Φ°Χ€ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΧ β Χ‘Φ΄Χ€Φ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ§ΧΦΉΧ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, Χ€Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦ·Χ£
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
ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ.
his sons are mamzerim, as he is indifferent to his wifeβs engaging in adultery.
ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°Χ§Φ·Χ¨.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ Χ ΧΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ Χ Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧΧΦΌΧ©Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ.
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 NaαΈ₯man said that Rabba bar Avuh says: There are no such heretics among the nations of the world.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ? ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ, Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦΈΧΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ.
The Gemara asks: But donβt 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 αΈ€iyya bar Abba says that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌ ΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ?
Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav NaαΈ₯man 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 NaαΈ₯man 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 NaαΈ₯man 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?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ’ΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ, Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ.
Rav Ukva bar αΈ€ama said: It is stated with regard to accepting an offering from them, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: βWhen any person of you shall bring an offeringβ (Leviticus 1:2): The verse states: βOf you,β and not: Of all of you, to exclude the Jewish transgressor who regularly violates a prohibition. Furthermore, God states: βOf you,β 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.
ΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ? ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ§Φ΅Χ Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ·Χ©Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧΦ°, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧ΄? ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΄Χ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
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: βAny man [ish ish] from the house of Israelβ¦who shall sacrifice his offeringβ (Leviticus 22:18): Since it would have been sufficient to write: A man [ish], what is the meaning when the verse states: βAny man [ish ish]β? It serves to include the gentiles, who may vow to bring vow offerings and gift offerings like a Jew.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ. Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ! ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉ? ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧͺ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
Β§ The mishna states with regard to an animal slaughtered by a gentile: And the carcass imparts ritual impurity through carrying. The Gemara asks: Isnβt 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.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉ? ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧͺ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
There are those who say an alternative version of Ravaβs 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.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧͺ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ? Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ¦ΦΈΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧͺ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ.
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: βThey adhered to Baβal-Peor and ate the offerings to the deadβ (Psalms 106:28). Just as a corpse imparts impurity in a tent, so too an idolatrous offering imparts impurity in a tent.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ·Χ β Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ·Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ!
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ: ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ, Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌ.
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.
