Chullin 171

לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא צא נחור דלאו שחיטה היא כלל אבל צא טרוף אימא

This is a case of 'it goes without saying'.

שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה וליבעי כסוי קמ"ל כדר' חייא בר אבא

It goes without saying that [the advice].'

ולמ"ד

Go and stab it' [is good] in that case there is no slaughtering at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And its blood most certainly does not require to be covered up.');">¹</span>

צא נחור מ"ט לא אמר

But against [the advice].'

צא טרוף

Go and make it trefah', one might argue and say that a slaughtering which does not render fit for food is nevertheless deemed a slaughtering, consequently its blood must be covered up; he therefore teaches us as R'Hiyya B'Abba [reported above].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That Rabbi is of the opinion that a slaughtering which does not render the animal fit for food is no slaughtering.');">²</span>

וכי תימא קסבר

And why does not he who says that Rabbi told him, 'Go and stab it', accept the other view that he told him, 'Go and make it trefah'?

שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה

Should you say because he [Rabbi] is of the opinion that a slaughtering which does not render fit for food is deemed a slaughtering.

והא א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן

[this cannot be, for] R'Hiyya B'Abba reported in the name of R'Johanan that Rabbi approved of R'Simeon's view in connection with the law of covering up the blood and therefore stated it in our Mishnah as the view of 'the Sages'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 85a.');">³</span>

ראה רבי דבריו של רבי שמעון בכסוי הדם ושנאו בלשון חכמים

- This is a case of 'it goes without saying'.

לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא צא טרוף דשחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה אבל צא נחור אימא

Thus, it goes without saying [that the advice] 'Go and make it trefah' [is good], for a slaughtering which does not render the animal fit for food is no slaughtering.

אין שחיטה לעוף מן התורה ונחירתו זו היא שחיטתו וליבעי כסוי קמ"ל

But against [the advice] 'Go and stab it' one might argue and say that by Biblical law a bird does not require to be slaughtered, and stabbing is all the slaughtering that is required, consequently the blood must be covered up; he therefore teaches us [that this cannot be so because of the verse] 'As I have commanded thee'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which Rabbi derived the rule that birds require to be slaughtered; hence he holds that the obligation is Biblical.');">⁴</span>

כאשר צויתיך

How came it that his flax was infested with worms?

ומי נפל ליה יאניבא בכיתניה

Did not Rabin B'Abba (others say.

והאמר רבין בר אבא ואמרי לה אמר רבי אבין בר שבא

R'Abin B'Shabba) declare that from the time that the people of the Exile<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Babylon.');">⁵</span>

משעלו בני הגולה פסקו הזיקין והזועות והרוחות והרעמים ולא החמיץ יינם ולא לקה פשתנם ונתנו חכמים עיניהם ברבי חייא ובניו

came up [to Palestine]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is not to the return under Ezra as is clear from the context.');">⁶</span>

כי מהניא זכותייהו אעלמא אדידהו לא

there ceased to be [in Palestine] shooting stars, earthquakes, storms and thunders, their wines never turned sour and their flax was never blighted; and the Rabbis set their eyes upon R'Hiyya and his sons?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the cessation of these plagues was due to the merit of R. Hiyya and his sons; v. Suk. 20a. How then could it have happened to R. Hiyya himself that his flax was infested with worms?');">⁷</span>

כדרב יהודה אמר רב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב

- Their merits benefitted the whole world but not themselves.

בכל יום ויום בת קול יוצאת ואומרת

Even as Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Every day a Heavenly Voice goes forth and proclaims, 'The whole world is provided with food only on account of my son Hanina,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Hanina b. Dosa renowned for his piety and austere living, v. Ta'an. ');">⁸</span>

כל העולם כולו ניזון בשביל חנינא בני וחנינא בני די לו בקב חרובין מערב שבת לערב שבת:

while my son Hanina is satisfied with one kab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A measure of capacity, v. Glos.');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חרש שוטה וקטן ששחטו ואחרים רואין אותם חייב לכסות

of carob fruit from one Sabbath eve to the other'.

בינן לבין עצמן פטור מלכסות

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECILE OR A MINOR SLAUGHTERED WHILE OTHERS WATCHED THEM, ONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., any one of those who watched them slaughter.');">¹⁰</span>

וכן לענין אותו ואת בנו ששחטו ואחרים רואין אותן אסור לשחוט אחריהם

MUST COVER UP THE BLOOD; BUT IF THEY WERE ALONE.

בינן לבין עצמן רבי מאיר מתיר לשחוט אחריהן וחכמים אוסרים

ONE NEED NOT COVER IT UP.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the slaughtering by these unfit persons is no slaughtering and therefore the blood need not be covered up.');">¹¹</span>

ומודים שאם שחט שאינו סופג את הארבעים:

SIMILARLY WITH THE LAW OF 'IT AND ITS YOUNG': IF THESE SLAUGHTERED WHILE OTHERS WATCHED THEM, IT IS FORBIDDEN TO SLAUGHTER AFTER THEM [THE YOUNG];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the same day; or the dam if the young was slaughtered first.');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ורבנן מאי שנא רישא דלא פליגי ומאי שנא סיפא דפליגי

BUT IF THEY WERE ALONE.

רישא אי אמרינן חייבין לכסות אמרי

R'MEIR PERMITS TO SLAUGHTER AFTER THEM [THE YOUNG].

שחיטה מעלייתא היא ואתי למיכל משחיטתן

BUT THE RABBIS FORBID IT; THEY AGREE, HOWEVER'THAT IF A PERSON DID SLAUGHTER [AFTER THEM], HE HAS NOT INCURRED FORTY STRIPES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there is a doubt whether the slaughtering by the deaf-mute etc. was a slaughtering or not.');">¹³</span>

סיפא נמי כיון דקאמרי רבנן

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>As to the Rabbis why is it that in the first clause they do not dissent and in the second clause they do?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the Rabbis one ought to cover up the blood, even though these unfit persons were alone when they slaughtered, because of the doubt as to their slaughtering, just as they rule in the final clause.');">¹⁴</span>

אסור לשחוט אחריהם אמרי

- Because in the first clause, if they were to say that the blood must be covered up, people might think that the slaughtering was a valid one and would even eat of what they slaughtered.

שחיטה מעלייתא היא ואתי למיכל משחיטתן

Then in the second clause too, since the Rabbis say that it is forbidden to slaughter [the young] after them, people might think that the slaughtering was a valid one and would even eat of what they slaughtered! - In the second clause people would say that he does not need any meat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that is why he abstains from slaughtering but not because he is forbidden so to do.');">¹⁵</span>

סיפא אמרי

Then in the first clause, too, people might say [that he is covering up the blood] only to keep his yard clean? - Could this be said if he slaughtered on a dunghill?

בשרא דלא קא מיבעיא ליה

or could this be said if he came to ask for a ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if Beth din were to rule that he must cover up the blood then clearly he would believe that the slaughtering of the deaf-mute etc. was valid.');">¹⁶</span>

רישא נמי אמרי

- But according to your own argument, even in the case of the second clause, what would you say if he came to ask for a ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here too, if forbidden by Beth din to slaughter the young after them, he will certainly regard the slaughtering of the first animal valid.');">¹⁷</span>

לנקר חצירו הוא צריך

Rather we must say that the Rabbis differ with the whole teaching [of the Mishnah], but they merely waited until R'Meir had completely stated his case and then they expressed their dissent.

שחט באשפה מאי איכא למימר

Now as to the view of the Rabbis, it is clear that they apply [in a case of doubt] the stricter rule; but wh the reason for R'Meir's ruling? - R'Jacob stated in the name of R'Johanan that, according to R'Meir, one would be culpable for [eating] nebelah [if one were to eat] of their slaughtering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And one would suffer stripes on account of it, because it is not a matter of doubt but a certainty that their slaughtering is bad so that the animal is nebelah.');">¹⁸</span>

בא לימלך מאי איכא למימר

Why is it?

וליטעמיך סיפא נמי בא לימלך מאי איכא למימר

R'Ammi answered: Because in the majority of cases what they do is bungled.

אלא

R'Papa said to R'Huna the son of R'Joshua (others say: R'Huna the son of R'Joshua said to R'Papa.)

רבנן אכולה מילתא פליגי ונטרי ליה לר' מאיר עד דמסיק לה למילתא והדר פליגי עילויה

Why in the majority of cases?

בשלמא רבנן לחומרא

The same would be the result if [this were so] only in a minority of cases, for since R'Meir takes into account the minority, by adding the minority to the presumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 9a: a living animal is presumed to be forbidden until it is definitely ascertained that it has been validly slaughtered. Here, therefore, even if it were held that the majority of children do not bungle what they undertake to do, there is however a minority of some who do, and this, coupled with the presumed prohibition of the animal, would carry more weight than the majority, and their slaughtering would be invalid. The question therefore is: why was it necessary to hold that the majority of children bungle what they do?');">¹⁹</span>

אלא רבי מאיר מאי טעמא

the majority is shaken?

אמר רבי יעקב אמר רבי יוחנן

For we have learnt: If a child was found by the side of dough with a piece of dough in his hand, R'Meir declares it clean but the Rabbis declare it unclean, because it is a child's nature to meddle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Toh. III, 8; Nid. 18b; Kid. 80a. According to Rashi the interpretation is this: it is quite certain that this child has touched the dough, for he holds some in his hand, and since it is the habit of most children to meddle and play about among refuse and unclean things, this child in all probability was unclean and so rendered the rest of the dough unclean. Tosaf. interpret thus: it is quite certain that this child was unclean for he is always being fondled by women and by menstruant women too, and since it is the habit of most children to meddle with dough, this child in all probability touched the dough and so rendered it unclean. The less probable view, by taking the minority into consideration, would be to say that this child did not himself touch the dough but a piece was given to him by some person.');">²⁰</span>

מחייב היה רבי מאיר על שחיטתן משום נבלה

And we asked.

מאי טעמא

What is R'Meir's reason?

אמר רבי אמי

[And the answer was given,] He is of the opinion that most children meddle but a minority do not; now this dough is presumed to be clean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As long as we do not know for certain that it has been rendered unclean.');">²¹</span>

הואיל ורוב מעשיהן מקולקלים

אמר ליה רב פפא לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ואמרי לה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרב פפא

מאי איריא רוב

אפילו מיעוט נמי

דהא רבי מאיר חייש למיעוטא

סמוך מיעוטא לחזקה ואתרע ליה רובא

דתנן

תינוק שנמצא בצד העיסה ובצק בידו רבי מאיר מטהר וחכמים מטמאין מפני שדרכו של תינוק לטפח

ואמרינן

מאי טעמא דרבי מאיר קסבר

רוב תינוקות מטפחין ומיעוט אין מטפחין ועיסה זו בחזקת טהרה עומדת