Chullin 4

Chapter 4

א אבל אמר הרי עלי לא
1 but not to the case of one who says.'
ב וכל הכל לאו לכתחלה הוא
2 Behold, I take it upon me [to bring a sacrifice]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the former case one who so vows is not liable to replace the animal if it is stolen or lost or has died, therefore if he has set aside the animal there is little fear that he will not fulfil his obligation; in the latter case the one who vows must supply an animal and is liable to replace it in all events, and there is therefore the danger of his not fulfilling his obligation. All vows of 'valuation' and of 'worth' come under this latter head; consequently the Mishnah quoted cannot possibly imply a right in the first instance.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ג אלא הכל חייבים בסוכה הכל חייבין בציצית הכי נמי דלאו לכתחלה
3 Does then the expression 'ALL MAY.'
ד חייבין לא קאמינא
4 never imply a right in the first instance?
ה אלא מעתה הכל סומכין אחד האנשים ואחד הנשים הכי נמי דלאו לכתחלה
5 What then of the statements: 'All must observe the law of Sukkah',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To dwell in booths during the feast of Tabernacles; v. Lev. XXIII, 42.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ו והא כתיב
6 and, 'All must observe the law of Zizith'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wearing of Fringes in accordance with Num. XV, 38ff.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ז (ויקרא א, ד) וסמך ידו ונרצה
7 Do these not imply a duty in the first instance? - [No;] I do not say so of the expression 'All must'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In these cases the Torah imposes a specific duty which can only mean in the first instance.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ח אין איכא הכל לכתחלה ואיכא הכל דיעבד אלא הכל דהכא ממאי דלכתחלה הוא דתקשי לך
8 Then take this case: 'All lay the hand [upon the head of the sacrifice], whether man or woman'.
ט דלמא דיעבד הוא ולא תקשי לך
9 Does this not mean a duty in the first instance?
י א"ל
10 Surely it is written: And he shall lay his hand.
יא אנא שחיטתן כשרה קשיא לי מדקתני שחיטתן כשר' דיעבד מכלל דהכל לכתחלה הוא דאי דיעבד תרתי דיעבד למה לי
11 and it shall be accepted for him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 4.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
יב אמר רבה בר עולא הכי קתני
12 - The truth of the matter is: 'ALL MAY.'
יג הכל שוחטין ואפי' טמא בחולין
13 sometimes implies a right in the first instance and sometimes implies a sanction after the act.
יד טמא בחולין מאי למימרא
14 This being so, in the case of our Mishnah, why should you say that it is a right in the first instance and consequently raise a difficulty?
טו בחולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש וקסבר
15 Say, rather, it is sanction after the act and there will be no difficulty.
טז חולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש כקדש דמו
16 - He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Ashi.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
יז כיצד הוא עושה
17 replied: My difficulty is the expression.
יח מביא סכין ארוכה ושוחט בה כדי שלא יגע בבשר
18 AND THEIR SLAUGHTERING IS VALID.
יט ובמוקדשים לא ישחוט שמא יגע בבשר
19 Since it states, AND THEIR SLAUGHTERING IS VALID, which is obviously a sanction after the act, ALL MAY SLAUGHTER must be a right in the first instance, for otherwise why is it necessary to state the sanction after the act twice?
כ ואם שחט ואומר
20 Rabbah B'Ulla said: This is the interpretation of the<big><b>MISHNAH:</b></big>
כא ברי לי שלא נגעתי שחיטתו כשרה
21 ALL MAY SLAUGHTER: even an unclean person [may slaughter] a common beast.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hullin, v. Glos.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
כב חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן דאפילו בחולין גרידי דיעבד נמי לא שמא ישהו שמא ידרסו ושמא יחלידו
22 An unclean person [may slaughter] a common beast! Surely this is obvious!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An Israelite was not required to observe the rules of levitical cleanness in connection with his ordinary food.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
כג וכולן ששחטו אהייא
23 - What is meant is this: [An unclean person may slaughter] a common beast in connection with which the cleanness proper to hallowed things has been observed; and the Tanna is of the opinion that common things kept in the cleanness proper to hallowed things are regarded as hallowed.
כד אילימא אחרש שוטה וקטן עלה קאי ואם שחטו מיבעי ליה
24 How does he [the unclean person] proceed [in slaughtering]? - He fetches a long knife and slaughters therewith so as to avoid touching the flesh [of the beast].
כה אלא אטמא בחולין הא אמרת
25 But in the case of consecrated beasts he should not slaughter lest he touch the flesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This would make the beast unclean and unfit for a sacrifice.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
כו לכתחלה נמי שחיט
26 Nevertheless, if he did slaughter and declared: 'I am certain that I did not touch the flesh', his slaughtering is valid.
כז ואלא אטמא במוקדשים בברי לי סגי
27 EXCEPT A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECILE OR A MINOR: whose slaughtering even in the case of common beasts, and even after the act is invalid, lest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By doing any of the acts mentioned the slaughtering is invalid.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
כח דליתיה קמן דנשייליה
28 they pause, press or thrust.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 37, where the five rules to be observed with regard to slaughtering are enumerated and explained.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
כט האי טמא במוקדשים מהכא נפקא
29 [Now on this interpretation, when the Mishnah continues:] AND IF ANY OF THESE SLAUGHTERED, to which [persons] does this statement refer?
ל מהתם נפקא
30 If we were to say it refers to a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor, [in that case], having just now dealt with these, [the Tanna] should have said: 'And if they slaughtered'! And if it refers to an unclean person slaughtering a common beast,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Mishnah teaches that if others were standing over him his slaughtering is valid.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
לא כל הפסולין ששחטו שחיטתן כשרה שהשחיטה כשרה בזרים בנשים ובעבדים ובטמאים ואפילו בקדשי קדשים ובלבד שלא יהיו טמאין נוגעין בבשר
31 surely you have said that he may slaughter even in the first instance! Or again, if it refers to an unclean person slaughtering a consecrated beast,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Mishnah teaches that if others were standing over him his slaughtering is valid.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
לב הכא עיקר
32 surely you have said that in his case it is sufficient if he said: 'I am certain [that i did not touch the flesh]'! - [ refers to the latter case] when he is not present to be questioned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to whether he touched the flesh or not. The Mishnah therefore teaches that if others were standing over him while he slaughtered and saw that he did not touch the flesh his slaughtering is valid.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
לג התם איידי דתנא שאר פסולין תנא נמי טמא במוקדשים
33 But is the law concerning an unclean person slaughtering a consecrated beast derived from [our Mishnah] here?
לד ואב"א
34 Is it not derived from [that other Mishnah] there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 31b. ohase hase');"><sup>14</sup></span>
לה התם עיקר דבקדשים קאי
35 which reads: If any of those who are unfit [for service in the Temple] slaughtered [a consecrated beast], the slaughtering is valid, for slaughtering is valid even if performed by them that are not priests or by women or by slaves or by unclean persons, and even if the beast was intended for a sacrifice of the highest grade;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' e.g. a burnt-offering.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
לו הכא איידי דתנא טמא בחולין תני נמי טמא במוקדשים
36 provided that the unclean person does not touch the flesh? - Here [our Mishnah] is the source of the law; [the other Mishnah] there mentions the unclean person slaughtering consecrated animals only because it mentions all others who are unfit.
לז האי טמא דאיטמא במאי
37 If you wish, however, I can say.
לח אילימא דאיטמי במת (במדבר יט, טז) בחלל חרב אמר רחמנא
38 There is the source of the law, seeing that it is in the tractate which deals with consecrated things; [our Mishnah] here mentions the unclean person slaughtering consecrated beasts only because it mentions the unclean person slaughtering common beasts. This unclean person of whom we speak, how did he become unclean? If we were to say that he became unclean by touching a corpse, [there is this difficulty]. The Divine law says: One slain with a sword,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 16.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter