Chullin 10

(ויקרא ד, כז) מעם הארץ פרט למומר

Of the common people<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 27. The context of this verse is: And if anyone of the common people sinned through error . . 28. Then he shall bring for his offering a goat.');">¹</span>

ר"ש בן יוסי אומר משום ר"ש

excludes an apostate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From whom no sin-offering may be accepted.');">²</span>

(ויקרא ד, כב) אשר לא תעשינה בשגגה ואשם השב מידיעתו מביא קרבן על שגגתו אינו שב מידיעתו אינו מביא קרבן על שגגתו

R'Simon B'Jose said in the name of R'Simeon: The verse: And doeth through error any of the things which the Lord his God hath commanded not to be done, and is guilty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 22.');">³</span>

ואמרינן

implies that only he who repents when he becomes conscious of his sin brings a sacrifice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a sin-offering.');">⁴</span>

מאי בינייהו

for his error, but he who does not repent on becoming conscious of his sin does not bring a sacrifice for his error.

ואמר רב המנונא

And it was asked: What practical difference is there between them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., between the first Tanna and R. Simeon. According to either view, one who is rebellious or opposed to the laws of the Torah is precluded from offering a sacrifice.');">⁵</span>

מומר לאכול חלב והביא קרבן על הדם איכא בינייהו

And R'Hamnuna replied: The difference between them lies in the case of one who, being an apostate in respect of the eating of forbidden fat, brings a sacrifice for having eaten blood [in error]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the first Tanna his sacrifice is not accepted because he is an apostate, whereas according to R. Simeon's view it is, for he is not an apostate in respect of that particular law for which he is bringing his sacrifice. It is clear, however, that the rule precluding an apostate from offering sacrifices is derived from the verse quoted in this Baraitha and not from the verse quoted above 'Of you'.');">⁶</span>

חדא בחטאת וחדא בעולה

- [The rule is derived from both passages], but one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the second Baraitha which derived the rule from the phrase 'of the common people'.');">⁷</span>

וצריכי דאי אשמעינן חטאת משום דלכפרה הוא אבל עולה דדורון הוא אימא לקבל מיניה

speaks of the sin-offering, while the other of the burnt offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin-offering was an obligatory sacrifice to be brought whenever certain sins were committed; a burnt-offering was brought voluntarily as a gift to the Lord.');">⁸</span>

ואי אשמעינן עולה משום דלאו חיובא הוא אבל חטאת דחיובא הוא אימא לקבל מיניה צריכא

and both are required.

וכל היכא דכתיב בהמה גריעותא היא

For if it were taught only in respect of a sin-offering, it would have been argued that the reason why he [the apostate] is precluded is because a sin-offering is brought for an atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And an apostate is not worthy of atonement since he would sin again and again.');">⁹</span>

והכתיב

but a burnt-offering, being in the nature of a gift [to the Lord], we might say should be accepted from him.

(תהלים לו, ז) אדם ובהמה תושיע ה' ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב

And on the other hand, if it were taught only in respect of a burnt-offering, it would have been argued that the reason why he is precluded is because there is no obligation on his part to offer it, but a sin-offering, being obligatory, we might say should be accepted from him.

אלו בני אדם שהן ערומין בדעת ומשימין עצמן כבהמה

[Therefore both statements] are required.

התם כתיב אדם ובהמה הכא בהמה לחודיה כתיב

But is it a general rule that whenever Scripture uses 'cattle'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Gemara now deals with the statement quoted above: 'Of the cattle' includes such persons who are devoid of merit like animals.');">¹⁰</span>

וכל היכא דכתיב אדם ובהמה מעליותא היא

it implies contempt?

והא כתיב

But is it not written: Man and cattle.

(ירמיהו לא, כז) וזרעתי את בית ישראל זרע אדם וזרע בהמה

Thou preservest, O Lord,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. XXXVI, 7.');">¹¹</span>

התם הא חלקיה קרא זרע אדם לחוד וזרע בהמה לחוד

and Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: This verse refers to those who are wise in understanding and conduct themselves humbly like cattle? - There is this difference; in the latter verse it reads: 'Man and cattle', but in our text it says, cattle by itself.

(סימן נקלף) א"ר חנן א"ר יעקב בר אידי א"ר יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא

But is it a general rule tha whenever Scripture uses 'Man and cattle' it implies merit?

ר"ג ובית דינו נמנו על שחיטת כותי ואסרוה

But is it not written: And I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of mail and with the seed of cattle?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jer. XXXI, 27. V. Sot. 22a. The seed of man is explained as referring to the righteous, and the seed of cattle as referring to the ignorant common people.');">¹²</span>

א"ל רבי זירא לרבי יעקב בר אידי

- In this latter case Scripture clearly distinguishes between the two, referring to the seed of man separately and to the seed of cattle separately.

שמא לא שמע רבי אלא בשאין ישראל עומד על גביו

<br>(Mnemonic: Niklaf[P]).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'peeled'. A mnemonic of the characteristic letters of the respective Rabbis in whose names the statement is reported. N = Hanan, K = Jackob, L = Levi, FP = Kappara.');">¹³</span>

א"ל

R'Hanan reported in the name of R'Jacob B'Idi, who reported in the name of R'Joshua B'Levi, who reported in the name of Bar Kappara, as follows: R'Gamaliel and his Court took a vote concerning the slaughtering by a Cuthean, and declared it invalid.

דמי האי מרבנן כדלא גמירי אינשי שמעתא

Thereupon R'Zera suggested to R'Jacob B'Idi: May it not be that my Master heard this ruling only in the case where no Israelite was standing over him? - He retorted: This student is as one who has never studied the law!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Aliter: This student thinks that men do not study the law.');">¹⁴</span>

בשאין ישראל עומד על גביו למימרא בעי

Where no Israelite was standing over him is it necessary to rule [that it is invalid].

קבלה מיניה או לא קבלה מיניה

Now, the question arises: Did R'Zera accept [th retort]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of R. Jacob b. Idi (that it is forbidden to eat of the Cuthean's slaughtering even if an Israelite stands over him) and abide by it.');">¹⁵</span>

ת"ש דאמר ר"נ בר יצחק א"ר אסי

or not? - Come and hear: R'Nahman B'Isaac reported in the name of R'Assi as follows: I saw R'Johanan eating the flesh of an animal slaughtered by a Cuthean.

אני ראיתי את רבי יוחנן שאכל משחיטת כותי אף רבי אסי אכל משחיטת כותי

Even R'Assi ate of the flesh of an animal slaughtered by a Cuthean.

ותהי בה רבי זירא

Now R'Zera was astonished at this.

לא שמיעא להו דאי הוה שמיעא להו הוו מקבלי לה או דלמא שמיע להו ולא קבלוה

Could it be that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan and R. Assi.');">¹⁶</span>

הדר פשיט לנפשיה

had not heard of this ruling [of the Court of R'Gamaliel], but had they heard of it they would have abided by it; or did they know of it but did not accept it?

מסתברא דשמיע להו ולא קבלוה דאי ס"ד לא שמיע להו ואי הוה שמיע להו הוו מקבלי לה היכי מסתייעא מילתא למיכל איסורא

In the end R'Zera came to the conclusion: It is reasonable to suppose that they knew of it but did not accept it; for if you were to say that they had not heard of it, but had they known of it they would have accepted it, it is difficult [to understand] how it should come about that such righteous men should eat something forbidden.

השתא בהמתן של צדיקים אין הקב"ה מביא תקלה על ידן צדיקים עצמן לא כל שכן

If the Holy One, Blessed be He, would not permit the beast of the righteous to sin in error.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra p. 28.');">¹⁷</span> how much less the righteous themselves!