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.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
This is the daf for Shabbat.
The Mishna rules that all are permitted to slaughter animals, and if they do, the meat is kosher. While establishing this broad permission, the Mishna excludes minors, deaf-mutes (cheresh), and the mentally incompetent (shoteh). However, if an adult supervises them to ensure the slaughter was performed correctly, the meat is valid.
The Gemara questions the Mishna’s phrasing: the opening phrase “all may slaughter” implies an ab initio (l’chatchila) permission, yet the concluding phrase “their slaughtering is kosher” suggests the act is only valid post facto (b’dieved). Initially, Rav Acha attempts to prove from other Mishnayot that the term “all” can indeed refer to a post facto case, neutralizing the question. Conversely, Rav Ashi cites other Mishnayot to show that “all” is a term typically used for ab initio rulings.
While both ultimately concede that “all” can technically carry both meanings, Rav Ashi argues that the context here implies ab initio. To resolve the Gemara’s original difficulty, Rava bar Ulla explains that each phrase in the Mishna refers to a different specific case, and he proceeds to re-interpret each line accordingly. However, three difficulties are subsequently raised against Rava bar Ulla’s interpretation, all of which the Gemara eventually resolves.
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.”
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. Thank you for your strength and steady presence.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Mark Baker in honor of Shoshana Bluma. “Shabbat Shalom. With much love.”
Chullin 2
מַתְנִי׳ הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין וּשְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, שֶׁמָּא יְקַלְקְלוּ אֶת שְׁחִיטָתָן. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וַאֲחֵרִים רוֹאִין אוֹתָן – שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה.
MISHNA: 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 because they lack competence. And for all of them, when they slaughtered an animal and others see and supervise them, their slaughter is valid.
גְּמָ׳ ״הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין״ – לְכַתְּחִלָּה, ״וּשְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה״ – דִּיעֲבַד!
GEMARA: There is an apparent contradiction between the first two phrases of the mishna. The tanna begins: Everyone slaughters an animal, indicating that their performing slaughter is permitted ab initio, and then teaches: And their slaughter is valid, indicating that their slaughter is valid only after the fact.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְכֹל ״הַכֹּל״ לְכַתְּחִלָּה הוּא? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה: הַכֹּל מְמִירִין, אֶחָד הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׁים – הָכִי נָמֵי דִּלְכַתְּחִלָּה הוּא? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר אֹתוֹ טוֹב בְּרָע אוֹ רַע בְּטוֹב״!
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: And does every use of the term: Everyone, indicate that the action in question is permitted ab initio? If that is so, in the mishna (Temura 2a), where it says: Everyone substitutes a non-sacred animal for a sacrificial animal, both men and women, is that also an expression indicating that it is permitted ab initio? But isn’t it written: “He shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for good” (Leviticus 27:10)?
הָתָם, כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא: לֹא שֶׁהָאָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְהָמִיר, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם הֵמִיר – מוּמָר, וְסוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים.
Rav Ashi answers: There, the reason the mishna uses the word everyone is that it immediately teaches: That is not to say that it is permitted for a person to substitute; rather, it means that if one did substitute a non-sacred animal for a sacrificial animal, substitution takes effect, and the one who substituted the non-sacred animal incurs [vesofeg] the forty lashes that are the punishment for violating the prohibition “Nor substitute it.” But here, since the mishna does not similarly qualify its statement, it indicates that everyone may perform the slaughter ab initio.
אֶלָּא הַכֹּל מַעֲרִיכִין וְנֶעֱרָכִין, נוֹדְרִין וְנִידָּרִין, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּלְכַתְּחִלָּה? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וְכִי תֶחְדַּל לִנְדֹּר לֹא יִהְיֶה בְךָ חֵטְא״!
Rav Aḥa challenges: But a mishna teaches (Arakhin 2a): Everyone takes vows of valuation and is thereby obligated to donate to the Temple treasury the value fixed by the Torah based on the age and gender of the person valuated; and everyone is valuated, and therefore one who vowed to donate his fixed value is obligated to pay; everyone vows to donate the market value of a person as a slave to the Temple treasury and is thereby obligated to pay; and everyone is the object of a vow if others vowed to donate his market value. Is that also an expression indicating that it is permitted ab initio? But it is written: “And if you shall cease to vow, there shall be no sin in you” (Deuteronomy 23:23), indicating that it is preferable not to vow.
וּכְתִיב: ״טוֹב אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִדֹּר מִשֶּׁתִּדּוֹר וְלֹא תְשַׁלֵּם״, וְתַנְיָא: טוֹב מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹדֵר כׇּל עִיקָּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: טוֹב מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה נוֹדֵר וּמְשַׁלֵּם. וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא בְּאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ״,
And it is written: “It is better that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay” (Ecclesiastes 5:4); and it is taught in a baraita with regard to that verse: Better than both this one, who vows and does not pay, and that one, who vows and pays, is one who does not take a vow at all; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Better than both this one, who vows and does not pay, and that one, who does not vow at all, is one who vows and pays in fulfillment of that vow. Rav Aḥa comments: And even Rabbi Yehuda states his opinion only in a case where one vows and says: This animal is designated for sacrifice, as in that case there is no concern that he will fail to fulfill his commitment, since even if the animal is stolen or lost, he is not required to bring another in its place.
אֲבָל אָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי״ – לֹא.
But in the case of one who vows and says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering, even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that no, it is best not to vow at all. Likewise, it is preferable not to vow to donate a certain monetary value to the Temple treasury. Apparently, then, the statements in that mishna: Everyone takes vows of valuation, and: Everyone vows to donate the assessment of a person to the Temple treasury, do not indicate that it is permitted to do so ab initio.
וְכֹל ״הַכֹּל״ לָאו לְכַתְּחִלָּה הוּא? אֶלָּא ״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִים בְּסוּכָּה״, ״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בְּצִיצִית״, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָאו לְכַתְּחִלָּה?
Rav Ashi responded: And is that to say that every use of the term: Everyone, is an indication that the action in question is not permitted ab initio? Rather, is the term: Everyone, in the baraita that states: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of sukka, and in the baraita that states: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes, also an indication that they are not permitted ab initio?
חַיָּיבִין – לָא קָאָמֵינָא. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״הַכֹּל סוֹמְכִין, אֶחָד הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׁים״ – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָאו לְכַתְּחִלָּה? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וְסָמַךְ יָדוֹ … וְנִרְצָה״!
Rav Aḥa answered: I am not speaking about cases where it is stated: Everyone is obligated, as it goes without saying that fulfilling any obligation is permitted ab initio. Rav Ashi asked: If that is so, that which was stated: Everyone who brings an offering places hands on the animal, both men and women (see Menaḥot 93a), is that also an expression indicating that it is not permitted ab initio? But isn’t it written: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to effect atonement for him” (Leviticus 1:4)?
אִין, אִיכָּא ״הַכֹּל״ לְכַתְּחִלָּה, וְאִיכָּא ״הַכֹּל״ דִּיעֲבַד. אֶלָּא ״הַכֹּל״ דְּהָכָא, מִמַּאי דִּלְכַתְּחִלָּה הוּא דְּתִקְשֵׁי לָךְ? דִּלְמָא דִּיעֲבַד הוּא, וְלָא תִּקְשֵׁי לָךְ.
Rav Aḥa answered: Indeed, there are instances where the word: Everyone, indicates ab initio, and there are instances where the word: Everyone, indicates after the fact. Rather, concerning the term: Everyone, that appears here in the mishna, from where can it be determined that it is an expression indicating that it is permitted ab initio, creating an apparent contradiction in the mishna that will be difficult for you? Perhaps it is an expression indicating that everyone’s slaughter is valid after the fact, and there will not be a contradiction in the mishna that will be difficult for you.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא ״שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה״ קַשְׁיָא לִי, מִדְּקָתָנֵי שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה דִּיעֲבַד, מִכְּלָל דְּ״הַכֹּל״ לְכַתְּחִלָּה הוּא, דְּאִי דִּיעֲבַד – תַּרְתֵּי דִּיעֲבַד לְמָה לִי?
Rav Ashi said to Rav Aḥa: I find the phrase: And their slaughter is valid, to be difficult for me. From the fact that the tanna teaches: And their slaughter is valid, which is an expression indicating that it is valid after the fact, conclude by inference that the initial phrase in the mishna: Everyone slaughters, is an expression indicating that it is permitted ab initio. As, if it indicated that it is valid after the fact, why do I need two phrases teaching that it is valid after the fact?
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא: הָכִי קָתָנֵי – הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ טָמֵא בְּחוּלִּין. טָמֵא בְּחוּלִּין מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְקָסָבַר: חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ כְּקֹדֶשׁ דָּמוּ.
Rabba bar Ulla said, in resolution of the conflict in the mishna, that this is what the mishna is teaching: Everyone slaughters, and even a ritually impure person may slaughter a non-sacred animal ab initio. The Gemara interjects: What is the purpose of stating that a ritually impure person may slaughter a non-sacred animal ab initio? There is no prohibition against rendering non-sacred meat impure. The Gemara answers that the reference is to non-sacred animals that were being prepared according to the strictures of sacrificial food, and the tanna holds that the halakhic status of non-sacred foods that were prepared according to the strictures of sacrificial food is like that of sacrificial food insofar as it is prohibited to render such food impure.
כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? מֵבִיא סַכִּין אֲרוּכָּה וְשׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִגַּע בַּבָּשָׂר.
The Gemara asks: How does an impure person act in order to ensure that he will not render the flesh of the slaughtered animal impure? The Gemara answers: He brings a long knife and slaughters the animal with it, so that he will not come into contact with the flesh of the slaughtered animal.
וּבְמוּקְדָּשִׁים לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט, שֶׁמָּא יִגַּע בַּבָּשָׂר, וְאִם שָׁחַט וְאוֹמֵר ״בָּרִי לִי שֶׁלֹּא נָגַעְתִּי״ – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה.
Rabba bar Ulla continues his interpretation of the mishna: And the reason the mishna also indicates that he may not slaughter ab initio is that with regard to sacrificial animals, he may not slaughter them ab initio even with a long knife, lest he come into contact with the flesh. But if he slaughtered the sacrificial animal and says: It is clear to me that I did not come into contact with the flesh, his slaughter is valid after the fact.
חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּחוּלִּין גְּרֵידֵי, דִּיעֲבַד נָמֵי לָא, שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁהוּ, שֶׁמָּא יִדְרְסוּ, וְשֶׁמָּא יַחֲלִידוּ.
And it teaches: This is the halakha with regard to all people except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, who, even if they slaughtered only non-sacred animals, their slaughter is not valid even after the fact. The reason the Sages deemed such slaughter not valid is lest people in these categories interrupt the slaughter, lest they press the knife in the course of slaughter, and lest they conceal the knife beneath the windpipe or the gullet in the course of an inverted slaughter.
וְכוּלָּן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ, אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן – עֲלַהּ קָאֵי, ״וְאִם שָׁחֲטוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אַטָּמֵא בְּחוּלִּין – הָא אָמְרַתְּ: לְכַתְּחִלָּה נָמֵי שָׁחֵיט!
The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the clause that follows in the mishna: And any of them who slaughtered an animal and others see and supervise them, their slaughter is valid, to which case in the mishna is it referring? If we say that the reference is to the case of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, why was it formulated: And any of them who slaughtered? Since it stands adjacent to that halakha, the tanna should have formulated the phrase: And if they slaughtered. Rather, perhaps the reference is to the case of a ritually impure person who slaughtered a non-sacred animal. The Gemara rejects that possibility as well. But didn’t you say in that case: He slaughters the animal even ab initio?
וְאֶלָּא, אַטָּמֵא בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁים – בְּ״בָרִי לִי״ סַגִּי! דְּלֵיתֵיהּ קַמַּן דִּנְשַׁיְּילֵיהּ.
And rather, perhaps the reference is to the case of a ritually impure person who slaughtered a sacrificial animal. The Gemara rejects that possibility, as in that case, if the ritually impure person says: It is clear to me that I did not come into contact with the flesh, it is sufficient, and there is no need for supervision. The Gemara answers: Supervision is necessary in the case of a ritually impure person who slaughtered a sacrificial animal, to account for a case where the ritually impure person is not before us so that we can ask him whether he came into contact with the flesh.
הַאי טָמֵא בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁים, מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא: כׇּל הַפְּסוּלִין שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ – שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁהַשְּׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה בְּזָרִים, בְּנָשִׁים, וּבַעֲבָדִים, וּבִטְמֵאִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ טְמֵאִין נוֹגְעִין בַּבָּשָׂר.
The Gemara asks: Is this halakha of a ritually impure person who slaughtered a sacrificial animal learned from an analysis of the mishna here? It is learned explicitly from the mishna there (Zevaḥim 31b): With regard to all those who are unfit for Temple service who slaughtered an offering, their slaughter is valid, as the slaughter of an offering is valid ab initio when performed even by non-priests, by women, by Canaanite slaves, and by ritually impure individuals. And this is the halakha even with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, provided that the ritually impure will not touch the flesh of the slaughtered animal, thereby rendering it impure.
הָכָא עִיקָּר. הָתָם, אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא שְׁאָר פְּסוּלִין – תְּנָא נָמֵי טָמֵא בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁים. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָתָם עִיקָּר, דִּבְקָדָשִׁים קָאֵי. הָכָא, אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא טָמֵא בְּחוּלִּין – תָּנֵי נָמֵי טָמֵא בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁים.
The Gemara answers: The mishna here is the primary source. There, since the tanna taught the rest of those disqualified for Temple service, he taught the case of a ritually impure person who slaughtered a sacrificial animal as well. And if you wish, say instead that the mishna there is the primary source, as it is standing in tractate Zevaḥim, which deals with sacrificial animals. Here, since the tanna taught the case of a ritually impure person who slaughtered a non-sacred animal, he also teaches the case of a ritually impure person who slaughtered a sacrificial animal.
הַאי טָמֵא, דְּאִיטַּמָּא בְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא דְּאִיטַּמִּי בְּמֵת, ״בַּחֲלַל חֶרֶב״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא,
The Gemara asks: This ritually impure person mentioned in the mishna is one who became impure with what form of impurity? If we say that he became impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, this is difficult, as the Merciful One states: “And whosoever in the open field touches one slain with a sword” (Numbers 19:16).
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 tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, 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
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, 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
Bronx, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
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
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 learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
Chullin 2
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΅Χ©Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ°Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ β Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
MISHNA: 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 because they lack competence. And for all of them, when they slaughtered an animal and others see and supervise them, their slaughter is valid.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, Χ΄ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ!
GEMARA: There is an apparent contradiction between the first two phrases of the mishna. The tanna begins: Everyone slaughters an animal, indicating that their performing slaughter is permitted ab initio, and then teaches: And their slaughter is valid, indicating that their slaughter is valid only after the fact.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ? ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ β ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΆΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ’ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·Χ’ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΧ΄!
Rav AαΈ₯a, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: And does every use of the term: Everyone, indicate that the action in question is permitted ab initio? If that is so, in the mishna (Temura 2a), where it says: Everyone substitutes a non-sacred animal for a sacrificial animal, both men and women, is that also an expression indicating that it is permitted ab initio? But isnβt it written: βHe shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for goodβ (Leviticus 27:10)?
ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·Χ©Φ·ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ β ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ€Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ.
Rav Ashi answers: There, the reason the mishna uses the word everyone is that it immediately teaches: That is not to say that it is permitted for a person to substitute; rather, it means that if one did substitute a non-sacred animal for a sacrificial animal, substitution takes effect, and the one who substituted the non-sacred animal incurs [vesofeg] the forty lashes that are the punishment for violating the prohibition βNor substitute it.β But here, since the mishna does not similarly qualify its statement, it indicates that everyone may perform the slaughter ab initio.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΆΧ’Φ±Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΉΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ°ΧΧ΄!
Rav AαΈ₯a challenges: But a mishna teaches (Arakhin 2a): Everyone takes vows of valuation and is thereby obligated to donate to the Temple treasury the value fixed by the Torah based on the age and gender of the person valuated; and everyone is valuated, and therefore one who vowed to donate his fixed value is obligated to pay; everyone vows to donate the market value of a person as a slave to the Temple treasury and is thereby obligated to pay; and everyone is the object of a vow if others vowed to donate his market value. Is that also an expression indicating that it is permitted ab initio? But it is written: βAnd if you shall cease to vow, there shall be no sin in youβ (Deuteronomy 23:23), indicating that it is preferable not to vow.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦ΄ΧΦΉΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ΄,
And it is written: βIt is better that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not payβ (Ecclesiastes 5:4); and it is taught in a baraita with regard to that verse: Better than both this one, who vows and does not pay, and that one, who vows and pays, is one who does not take a vow at all; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Better than both this one, who vows and does not pay, and that one, who does not vow at all, is one who vows and pays in fulfillment of that vow. Rav AαΈ₯a comments: And even Rabbi Yehuda states his opinion only in a case where one vows and says: This animal is designated for sacrifice, as in that case there is no concern that he will fail to fulfill his commitment, since even if the animal is stolen or lost, he is not required to bring another in its place.
ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ·ΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΉΧ.
But in the case of one who vows and says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering, even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that no, it is best not to vow at all. Likewise, it is preferable not to vow to donate a certain monetary value to the Temple treasury. Apparently, then, the statements in that mishna: Everyone takes vows of valuation, and: Everyone vows to donate the assessment of a person to the Temple treasury, do not indicate that it is permitted to do so ab initio.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΧ΄ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ? ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄, Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧͺΧ΄, ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ?
Rav Ashi responded: And is that to say that every use of the term: Everyone, is an indication that the action in question is not permitted ab initio? Rather, is the term: Everyone, in the baraita that states: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of sukka, and in the baraita that states: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes, also an indication that they are not permitted ab initio?
ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ, Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ‘ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ β¦ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧΧ΄!
Rav AαΈ₯a answered: I am not speaking about cases where it is stated: Everyone is obligated, as it goes without saying that fulfilling any obligation is permitted ab initio. Rav Ashi asked: If that is so, that which was stated: Everyone who brings an offering places hands on the animal, both men and women (see MenaαΈ₯ot 93a), is that also an expression indicating that it is not permitted ab initio? But isnβt it written: βAnd he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to effect atonement for himβ (Leviticus 1:4)?
ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΧ΄ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ. ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°? ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°.
Rav AαΈ₯a answered: Indeed, there are instances where the word: Everyone, indicates ab initio, and there are instances where the word: Everyone, indicates after the fact. Rather, concerning the term: Everyone, that appears here in the mishna, from where can it be determined that it is an expression indicating that it is permitted ab initio, creating an apparent contradiction in the mishna that will be difficult for you? Perhaps it is an expression indicating that everyoneβs slaughter is valid after the fact, and there will not be a contradiction in the mishna that will be difficult for you.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ Χ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ§Φ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ β ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ?
Rav Ashi said to Rav AαΈ₯a: I find the phrase: And their slaughter is valid, to be difficult for me. From the fact that the tanna teaches: And their slaughter is valid, which is an expression indicating that it is valid after the fact, conclude by inference that the initial phrase in the mishna: Everyone slaughters, is an expression indicating that it is permitted ab initio. As, if it indicated that it is valid after the fact, why do I need two phrases teaching that it is valid after the fact?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²Χ©ΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΧΧΦ³Χ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΉΦΌΧΦΆΧ©Χ, ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²Χ©ΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΧΧΦ³Χ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΉΦΌΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΌ.
Rabba bar Ulla said, in resolution of the conflict in the mishna, that this is what the mishna is teaching: Everyone slaughters, and even a ritually impure person may slaughter a non-sacred animal ab initio. The Gemara interjects: What is the purpose of stating that a ritually impure person may slaughter a non-sacred animal ab initio? There is no prohibition against rendering non-sacred meat impure. The Gemara answers that the reference is to non-sacred animals that were being prepared according to the strictures of sacrificial food, and the tanna holds that the halakhic status of non-sacred foods that were prepared according to the strictures of sacrificial food is like that of sacrificial food insofar as it is prohibited to render such food impure.
ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ¦Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧ? ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ²Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨.
The Gemara asks: How does an impure person act in order to ensure that he will not render the flesh of the slaughtered animal impure? The Gemara answers: He brings a long knife and slaughters the animal with it, so that he will not come into contact with the flesh of the slaughtered animal.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ΄ β Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
Rabba bar Ulla continues his interpretation of the mishna: And the reason the mishna also indicates that he may not slaughter ab initio is that with regard to sacrificial animals, he may not slaughter them ab initio even with a long knife, lest he come into contact with the flesh. But if he slaughtered the sacrificial animal and says: It is clear to me that I did not come into contact with the flesh, his slaughter is valid after the fact.
ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΅Χ©Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ.
And it teaches: This is the halakha with regard to all people except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, who, even if they slaughtered only non-sacred animals, their slaughter is not valid even after the fact. The reason the Sages deemed such slaughter not valid is lest people in these categories interrupt the slaughter, lest they press the knife in the course of slaughter, and lest they conceal the knife beneath the windpipe or the gullet in the course of an inverted slaughter.
ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΅Χ©Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ β Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧ΄ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ!
The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the clause that follows in the mishna: And any of them who slaughtered an animal and others see and supervise them, their slaughter is valid, to which case in the mishna is it referring? If we say that the reference is to the case of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, why was it formulated: And any of them who slaughtered? Since it stands adjacent to that halakha, the tanna should have formulated the phrase: And if they slaughtered. Rather, perhaps the reference is to the case of a ritually impure person who slaughtered a non-sacred animal. The Gemara rejects that possibility as well. But didnβt you say in that case: He slaughters the animal even ab initio?
ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ΄ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ΄ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ! ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ§Φ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Φ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ.
And rather, perhaps the reference is to the case of a ritually impure person who slaughtered a sacrificial animal. The Gemara rejects that possibility, as in that case, if the ritually impure person says: It is clear to me that I did not come into contact with the flesh, it is sufficient, and there is no need for supervision. The Gemara answers: Supervision is necessary in the case of a ritually impure person who slaughtered a sacrificial animal, to account for a case where the ritually impure person is not before us so that we can ask him whether he came into contact with the flesh.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ? ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌ β Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨.
The Gemara asks: Is this halakha of a ritually impure person who slaughtered a sacrificial animal learned from an analysis of the mishna here? It is learned explicitly from the mishna there (ZevaαΈ₯im 31b): With regard to all those who are unfit for Temple service who slaughtered an offering, their slaughter is valid, as the slaughter of an offering is valid ab initio when performed even by non-priests, by women, by Canaanite slaves, and by ritually impure individuals. And this is the halakha even with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, provided that the ritually impure will not touch the flesh of the slaughtered animal, thereby rendering it impure.
ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨. ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ β ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ.
The Gemara answers: The mishna here is the primary source. There, since the tanna taught the rest of those disqualified for Temple service, he taught the case of a ritually impure person who slaughtered a sacrificial animal as well. And if you wish, say instead that the mishna there is the primary source, as it is standing in tractate ZevaαΈ₯im, which deals with sacrificial animals. Here, since the tanna taught the case of a ritually impure person who slaughtered a non-sacred animal, he also teaches the case of a ritually impure person who slaughtered a sacrificial animal.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χͺ, Χ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧΧ΄ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ,
The Gemara asks: This ritually impure person mentioned in the mishna is one who became impure with what form of impurity? If we say that he became impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, this is difficult, as the Merciful One states: βAnd whosoever in the open field touches one slain with a swordβ (Numbers 19:16).
