Chullin 25

Chapter 25

א ואין להן מחשבה

1 hut not [the mere expression of] his intention.

ב אמר ליה

2 - He replied.

ג מחשבה גרידתא לא קא מיבעיא ליה

3 He certainly did not put the question in regard to the mere [expression of the] intention [of a minor].

ד כי קא מיבעיא ליה מחשבתו ניכרת מתוך מעשיו כגון דהוה קיימא עולה בדרום ואתיוה בצפון ושחטה מאי

4 What he asked was whether his intention1

ה מדאתייא בצפון ושחט איכוין לה או דילמא מקום הוא דלא איתרמי ליה

5 could be inferred from his act.2

ו הא נמי אמרה רבי יוחנן חדא זימנא

6 For example: there stood [an animal intended for] a burnt-offering on the south side [of the altar], and the minor brought it to the north side and slaughtered it there.

ז דתנן

7 Should we say that since he brought it to the north side and slaughtered it there [it is clear that] he had the proper intention,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sacrifices of the highest grade had to be slaughtered on the north side of the altar; v. Zeb, chap. V. Furthermore, every act in connection with any sacrifice had to be intended for the particular sacrifice.');">3

ח המעלה פירותיו לגג מפני הכנימה וירד עליהם טל אינן בכי יותן ואם נתכוין לכך הרי הן בכי יותן

8 or should we rather say that he did not find a convenient place [in the south]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the slaughtering of the animal may have been performed on the north side not because he knew that it was necessary to slaughter a burnt-offering there but because he found the place more convenient.');">4

ט העלום חרש שוטה וקטן אף על פי שנתכוונו לכך אינן בכי יותן מפני שיש להן מעשה ואין להן מחשבה

9 But has not R'Johanan already expressed his view in such a case?

י וא"ר יוחנן

10 For we have learnt:5

יא ל"ש אלא שלא היפך בהן אבל היפך בהן הרי זה בכי יותן

11 If [a man] took his fruit up to the roof in order to keep it free from maggots and dew fell upon it, it does not come within the rule of 'if water be put'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 38. From this verse the law is derived that produce becomes susceptible to uncleanness only after it has been made wet by water or other liquids specified in Maksh. VI, 4. It is provided, however, that the owner must have applied the water to the produce intentionally, or, at least, that the presence of the water on the produce was acceptable to him. V. Maksh. I, 1.');">6

יב הכי קא מיבעיא ליה

12 If, however, he had the Intention [that the dew should fall upon it] it comes within the rule of 'if water be put'.

יג דאורייתא או דרבנן

13 If it was taken up by a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor, it does not come within the rule of 'if water be put', even though they had the intention [that the dew should fall upon it], because the law recognizes the act of a minor but not [mere] intention.

יד רב נחמן בר יצחק מתני הכי

14 And R'Johanan explained that this rule only applies where they7

טו א"ר חייא בר אבא בעי רבי יוחנן

15 did not turn the fruit over, but if they did turn the fruit over it comes within the rule of 'if water be put'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Their turning over the fruit shows that they intended the dew to fall on the other side of the fruit too. It must be assumed, however, that they did not expressly state their Specific purpose, for if they did, it would not be necessary for R. Johanan to teach this, for it is obvious that their act is conclusive evidence of their expressed intention. Here is a clear case of an act which, though not conclusive, might well serve to indicate the minor's intention; yet R. Johanan ruled that the law was satisfied with such evidence of intention.');">8

טז קטן יש לו מעשה או אין לו מעשה

16 The question [R'Johanan] put was this: Was this rule9

יז אמר ליה רבי אמי

17 laid down by the Torah or only by the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the rule is Biblical then it would be applied in all cases, even where the effect of such application would produce a more lenient result; e.g., in the case of the burnt-offering mentioned above, the result of applying the rule would be to declare the sacrifice valid. If, however, the rule was only laid down by the Rabbis, it would only be applied in such cases where the effect of such application would produce a more stringent result; e.g, in the case of the fruit on the roof, the result of applying the rule would be to regard the fruit as susceptible to uncleanness.');">10

יח ותיבעי ליה מחשבה

18 R'Nahman B'Isaac gives this version [of the foregoing argument].

יט מאי שנא מחשבה דלא קא מיבעיא ליה דתנן

19 R'Hiyya B'Abba said that R'Johanan put this question: Does the law recognize the act of a minor [as sufficient evidence of his expressed intention] or not?

כ אין להן מחשבה

20 Said R'Ammi to R'Hiyya.

כא מעשה נמי לא תיבעי ליה דתנן

21 He might as well have put the question in regard to the [expression of the] intention [of a minor].

כב יש להן מעשה

22 Why did he not put the question in regard to the [expression of the] intention [of a minor]?

כג הכי קא מיבעיא ליה

23 Because we have learnt that the law does not recognize the [expression of the] intention of a minor [as sufficient evidence of his intention]; for the same reason he need not have put the question in regard to the act of a minor because we have learnt that the law recognizes the act of a minor [as sufficient evidence of his expressed intention]! - The question [R'Johanan] put was this: Is this rule laid down by the Torah or only by the Rabbis? - And [R'Johanan himself] solved [it]: The act of a minor [as sufficient evidence of his unexpressed intention] is recognized even by the Torah; [the mere expression of] his intention is not recognized even by the Rabbis;11

כד דאורייתא או דרבנן

24 the [unexpressed] intention of the minor evidenced from his act is not recognized by the Torah but only by the Rabbis.

כה ופשיט

25 Samuel put the following question to R'Huna: Whence do we know that an act performed incidentally in connection with sacrifices12

כו יש להן מעשה ואפילו מדאורייתא אין להן מחשבה ואפי' מדרבנן מחשבתו ניכרת מתוך מעשיו מדאורייתא אין לו מדרבנן יש לו

26 is invalid? - [He replied,] Because it is written: And he shall slaughter the bullock,13

כז בעא מיניה שמואל מרב הונא

27 thus teaching that the slaughtering should be intended for a bullock.

כח מנין למתעסק בקדשים שהוא פסול

28 Thereupon Samuel said: This we already know;14

כט שנאמר

29 but whence do we know that this rule is indispensable?15

ל (ויקרא א, ה) ושחט את בן הבקר שתהא שחיטה לשם בן בקר

30 - He replied: It is written: Ye shall slaughter it at your will,16

לא אמר לו

31 that is to say, slaughter it intentionally.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since we have two verses each directing that the slaughtering of a consecrated animal must he accompanied by the proper intention the rule becomes indispensable, in accordance with the Rabbinic dictum: wherever Scripture repeats an injunction it is meant to be indispensable.');">17

לב זו בידינו היא לעכב מנין

32 <big>MISHNAH: </big>THAT WHICH IS SLAUGHTERED BY A GENTlle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though the slaughtering was performed according to ritual and in the presence of an Israelite, the animal is regarded as nebelah and may not he eaten; but also, like nebelah, it may be used for any other purpose.');">18

לג (ת"ל)

33 IS NEBELAH19

לד (ויקרא יט, ה) לרצונכם תזבחוהו לדעתכם זבוחו:

34 AND DEFILES BY CARRYING.20

לה <big>מתני׳</big> שחיטת עובד כוכבים נבלה ומטמאה במשא:

35 <big>GEMARA: </big>It is nebelah only but it is not prohibited for all other purposes.

לו <big>גמ׳</big> נבלה אין איסור הנאה לא מאן תנא

36 Who is the authority for this view? - R'Hiyya B'Abba in the name of R'Johanan replied: It cannot be R'Eliezer, for were it R'Eliezer [it should also be prohibited for all other purposes] since he maintains that the thoughts of a gentile are usually directed towards idolatry.21

לז א"ר חייא ברבי אבא א"ר יוחנן

37 R'Ammi said that the Mishnah is to be interpreted thus: THAT WHICH IS SLAUGHTERED BY A GENTILE IS NEBELAH, but [that which is slaughtered] by a min22

לח דלא כרבי אליעזר דאי ר"א האמר

38 is presumed to be intended for idolatry.21

לט סתם מחשבת עובד כוכבים לעבודת כוכבים

39 We thus learnt here what our Rabbis have taught: That which is slaughtered by a min [is regarded as] intended for idolatry, his bread as the bread of Cutheans,23

מ רבי אמי אמר הכי קתני

40 his wine as wine used for idolatrous purposes, his scrolls of the Law as books of soothsayers,24

מא שחיטת עובד כוכבים נבלה הא דמין לעבודת כוכבים

41 his fruit as tebel.25

מב תנינא להא דת"ר

42 Some add, even

מג שחיטת מין לעבודת כוכבים פיתו פת כותי יינו יין נסך ספריו ספרי קוסמין פירותיו טבלין וי"א

מד אף

Previous Chapter Next Chapter