Chullin 26

his children as bastards.

And the first Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What is his view about the children?');">¹</span>

- He holds that he would not allow his wife to prostitute herself.

The Master stated above: 'THAT WHICH IS SLAUGHTERED BY A GENTILE IS NEBELAH'.

But perhaps he is a min? - R'Nahman in the name of Rabbah B'Abbuha answered: There are no minim among the gentiles.

But we see that there are! Say: The majority of gentiles are not minim.

For he accepts the opinion expressed by R'Hiyya B'Abba in the name of R'Johanan: The gentiles outside the land [of Israel] are not idolaters; they only continue the customs of their ancestors.

R'Joseph B'Minyomi stated in the name of R'Nahman: There are no minim among the idolatrous nations.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the law does not regard a gentile mill as a min.');">²</span>

Now, to what would this rule apply?

Do you say to shechitah?

But surely, if what is slaughtered by a min who is an Israelite is prohibited, it goes without saying that what is slaughtered by a gentile min is prohibited! Do you then say it applies to the law of 'casting down into a pit'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. A.Z. ');">³</span>

But surely, if a min who is an Israelite may be cast down, it goes without saying that a gentile min may be cast down! R''Ukba B'Hama said: The rule applies to the matter of accepting sacrifices from them.

For it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 19.');">⁴</span>

Of you,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 2.');">⁵</span>

but not all of you, thus excluding an apostate.'

Of you', that is to say, among you [Israelites] is a distinction drawn but not among the gentiles.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., sacrifices may he accepted from all gentiles without exception.');">⁶</span>

But are you correct in this?

Perhaps this is the meaning [of the Baraitha]: As regards Israelites, you may accept sacrifices from the righteous but not from the wicked, but as regards gentiles you may not accept sacrifices from them at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so when the Baraitha states that no distinction is made among the gentiles it is entirely negative, i.e., on no account and in no circumstances may sacrifices be accepted from gentiles.');">⁷</span>

- You cannot entertain such a view, for it has been taught: [It would have sufficed had Scripture stated], a man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 18. The verse, translated literally, reads: A man, a man of the children of Israel . . that bringeth his offering etc. It is suggested that the repetition of 'a man' extends the law to include such persons other than those contemplated in the ordinary meaning of the verse; in this case, gentiles.');">⁸</span>

why does it state, 'a man, a man?

To include gentiles, that they may bring either votive or freewill-offerings like an Israelite.

AND DEFILES BY CARRYING.

Is not this obvious?

Since it is nebelah [it follows that] it defiles by carrying! Raba answered: This is the interpretation.

This animal defiles by carrying, but there is another [similar] case where the animal even defiles [men and utensils that are] in the same tent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. XIX, 14: This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent, every one that cometh into the tent, and everything that is in the tent shall be unclean seven days. The rule laid down in this verse has been extended by the Rabbis to include a person or thing which is directly over (and thus forming a tent over) the unclean object.');">⁹</span>

Which is that?

It is the case of an animal slaughtered as a sacrifice to idols.

This then is in accordance with the view held by R'Judah B'Bathyra.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra.');">¹⁰</span>

Some report this statement as follows: Raba answered: This is the interpretation.

This animal defiles by carrying, and there is another case which is similar to this one in that the animal [there too only defiles by carrying but does not defile [men and utensils that are] in the same tent.

Which is that?

It is the case of an animal slaughtered as a sacrifice to idols.

This then is not in agreement with R'Judah B'Bathyra.

For it has been taught: R'Judah B'Bathyra said: Whence do we know that sacrifices unto idols defile [men and utensils that are] in the same tent?

From the verse: They joined themselves also unto Baal-Peor and ate the sacrifices of the dead<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. CVI, 28.');">¹¹</span>

as a dead body defiles [men and utensils that are] in the same tent so also do sacrifices unto idols.

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE SLAUGHTERED BY NIGHT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the dark.');">¹²</span>

LIKEWISE IF A BLIND MAN SLAUGHTERED.

THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID.

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>The expression 'IF ONE SLAUGHTERED' implies that the slaughtering is valid only after the act but it does not imply a right in the first instance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the reason is because it is to be feared that the slaughterer will not be able to ascertain whether he has sufficiently cut through the organs of the throat.');">¹³</span>

Now is not this contradicted [by the following statement]: At all times one may slaughter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This expression implies a right in the first instance to do so.');">¹⁴</span>

by day or by night, and [in all places,] whether on the rooftop or on top of a ship?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although we learnt (infra 41a) that one may not slaughter and allow the blood to run into the sea or vessel, lest it be said the slaughtering was an act of idolatrous worship to the deity of the sea, or that it was being collected for an idolatrous purpose, here, where the slaughtering is performed on the roof top and the blood collected in a vessel, there is no such apprehension, for it was collected in a vessel merely to avoid fouling the roof. Similarly where the blood is allowed to run into the sea from the top of the ship it is done merely to avoid fouling the top of the ship.');">¹⁵</span>

- R'Papa answered [that in the latter case] the man slaughters to the light of a torch.

R'Ashi added.

This is supported by the context, for in the latter case nigh and day are in juxtaposition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Suggesting that the distinction is merely one of time but not necessarily that the slaughtering is done in the dark.');">¹⁶</span>

whereas in the Mishnah night and a blind man are in juxtaposition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that the darkness of the night is intended, corresponding with the darkness of a blind man.');">¹⁷</span>

This is conclusive.