Chullin 78

Chapter 78

א מקום שאין מחשבה פוסלת בחולין אלא בשתי עבודות אינו דין שלא יהא הכל הולך אלא אחר השוחט

1 how much more in the case of unconsecrated animals, where a wrongful intention renders them invalid only if expressed in the course of any one of two services,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood. These two services are the only services referred to in the Bible in connection with sacrifices to idols; the former in Ex. XXII, 19, the latter in Ps. XVI, 4.');">1

ב תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן

2 does everything depend solely upon the intention of him who slaughters!

ג השוחט את הבהמה לזרוק דמה לעבודת כוכבים ולהקטיר חלבה לעבודת כוכבים הרי אלו זבחי מתים

3 [The following Baraitha] was taught in support of the view of R'Johanan: If a person [an Israelite] slaughtered an animal with the intention [expressed during the slaughtering] of sprinkling the blood or burning the fat unto idols, it is regarded as a sacrifice unto the dead.2

ד שחטה ואח"כ חישב עליה זה היה מעשה בקיסרי ולא אמרו בה לא איסור ולא היתר

4 If he slaughtered it and afterwards expressed his intention - this was an actual case which occurred in Caesarea and the Rabbis expressed no opinion with regard to it, neither forbidding nor permitting it.

ה אמר רב חסדא

5 R'Hisda explained.

ו לא אמרו בה איסור משום כבודן דרבנן לא היתר משום כבודו דרבי אליעזר

6 They did not, forbid it in deference to the view of the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the first Tanna of our Mishnah, who does not hold the view that the thoughts of an idolater are usually directed towards idolatry. In this case, it is suggested, he will hold that all the acts performed before the actual expression of an intention towards idolatry are not regarded as intended for idolatry.');">3

ז ממאי

7 and they did not permit it in deference to the view of R'Eliezer.4

ח דלמא עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן התם אלא דלא שמענא דחשיב אבל הכא דשמענא דחשיב הוכיח סופו על תחלתו

8 But how do you know this?

ט אי נמי ע"כ לא קאמר ר"א התם אלא גבי עובד כוכבים דסתם מחשבת עובד כוכבים לעבודת כוכבים אבל ישראל הוכיח סופו על תחלתו לא אמרינן

9 perhaps the Rabbis maintain their view only there [in our Mishnah] because we did not hear him [sc. the idolater] express any intention at all, but here since we heard him express an intention [after the slaughtering, even the Rabbis will admit that it is invalid, for] his last act proves what he had in mind at the beginning.5

י אלא אמר רב שיזבי

10 Or you might argue thus: Perhaps R'Eliezer maintains his view only there [in our Mishnah], because it deals with a heathen, and he is of the opinion that the thoughts of a heathen are usually directed towards idolatry, but here since we are dealing with an Israelite it would not be right to say that his last act proves what he had in mind at the beginning.6

יא לא אמרו בה היתר משום כבודו דרשב"ג

11 - Rather, said R'Shizbi, [explain thus]: They did not permit it in deference to the view of R'Simeon B'Gamaliel.7

יב הי רשב"ג

12 Which statement of R'Simeon B'Gamaliel is meant?

יג אילימא רשב"ג דגיטין דתנן

13 Shall I say it is his statement on the subject of Divorce?

יד הבריא שאמר כתבו גט לאשתי רצה לשחק בה ומעשה בבריא שאמר כתבו גט לאשתי ועלה לגג ונפל ומת אמר רשב"ג

14 For we have learnt: If a person in good health said: 'Write a bill of divorce to my wife', it is held that he merely intended to tease her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is no divorce even though the bill was handed to the wife, because no instructions were given to deliver it to the wife; v. Git. 66a. In the case of a person who was dangerously ill, however, the law is that if he merely said: 'Write a bill of divorce to my wife', without adding. 'And deliver it to her', the divorce would be valid.');">8

טו אם מעצמו נפל ה"ז גט ואם הרוח דחתו אינו גט

15 And there actually happened a case where a person of good health said: 'Write a bill of divorce to my wife', and he immediately went up to the roof and fell down from it and was killed,9

טז והוינן בה מעשה לסתור

16 and R'Simeon B'Gamaliel ruled: If he threw himself down, the divorce is valid, but if the wind pushed him over, the divorce is not valid.

יז חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני

17 And the following argument ensued: Does not the case stated contradict [the given ruling]?10

יח אם הוכיח סופו על תחלתו ה"ז גט

18 - [And the reply was,] There is an omission [in the text] and it should read thus: If his last act proves what he had in mind at the beginning, the divorce will be valid.

יט ומעשה נמי בבריא שאמר כתבו גט לאשתי ועלה לגג ונפל ומת אמר רשב"ג

19 And there actually happened a case where a person in good health said: 'Write a bill of divorce to my wife', and he immediately went up to the roof and fell down from it and was killed, and R'Simeon B'Gamaliel ruled: If he threw himself down, the divorce is valid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For his subsequent suicidal act is a conclusive proof that his mind was unsettled from the outset, and so the divorce is valid as in the case of a person dangerously ill; v. p. 212, n. 4.');">11

כ אם מעצמו נפל ה"ז גט ואם הרוח דחתו אינו גט

20 but if the wind pushed him over, the divorce is not valid!12

כא ודלמא שאני התם דקאמר כתבו

21 - Perhaps this case is different for he actually said: 'Write [the bill of divorce].'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it might well be inferred that he intended the bill to be delivered to his wife, this intention no doubt being present in his mind at the time he gave instructions to write the bill of divorce. But in the case of idolatry, there is no possible inference to be drawn from subsequent conduct as to this man's earlier act.');">13

כב אלא אמר רבינא

22 Rather, said Rabina: It was in deference to the view of R'Simeon B'Gamaliel in the following case.

כג משום כבודו דרשב"ג דהכא דתניא

23 For it was taught: If a person assigned in writing his estate, which included slaves, to another, and the latter said: 'I do not want them', they [sc. the slaves] may nevertheless eat terumah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the assignment is operative in spite of the protestations of the assignee, so that the slaves being now members of a priest's household may eat terumah (v. Glos.) in accordance with Lev. XXII, 11.');">14

כד הכותב נכסיו לאחרים והיו בהן עבדים ואמר הלה אי אפשי בהן אם היה רבו שני כהן הרי אלו אוכלין בתרומה

24 if their second master15

כה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר

25 was a priest.

כו כיון שאמר הלה אי אפשי בהן כבר זכו בהן יורשין

26 R'Simeon B'Gamaliel says.

כז והוינן בה

27 As soon as that person15

כח לת"ק אפילו עומד וצווח

28 has said: 'I do not want them', the heirs at once become the legal owners of them.16

כט אמר רבה ואיתימא רבי יוחנן

29 And the following argument ensued: Would the first Tanna regard the assignee as the legal owner even if he stands and objects?17

ל בצווח מעיקרא דכ"ע לא פליגי דלא קנה

30 Whereupon Rabbah (others say: R'Johanan) explained.

לא בשותק ובסוף צווח דכ"ע לא פליגי דקנה

31 If he15

לב כי פליגי שזיכה לו ע"י אחר ושתק ולבסוף צווח

32 objected from the outset, all agree that he has not acquired them; likewise if he remained silent at first,18

לג ת"ק סבר

33 but subsequently objected, all agree that he has acquired them.

לד מדשתיק קננהו והאי דקא צווח מיהדר קא הדר ביה

34 The dispute arises only where the assignor transferred the estate through a third party19

לה ורשב"ג סבר

35 to the assignee, and the latter was silent at first but subsequently objected to it.

לו הוכיח סופו על תחילתו והא דלא צווח מעיקרא סבר

36 The first Tanna is of the opinion that by his silenc has acquired them, and his subsequent objection merely signifies that he has changed his mind.

לז כי לא אתי לידיה אמאי אצווח

37 R'Simeon B'Gamaliel is of the opinion that his last act proves what he had in mind at the beginning,20

לח אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל

38 and the reason he did not object at the outset was because he, no doubt, said to himself, 'Why should I object before they came into my possession? '

לט הלכה כרבי יוסי

39 Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel that the halachah is in accordance with the view of R'Jose.21

מ הנהו טייעי דאתו לציקוניא יהיב דיכרי לטבחי ישראל אמרו להו

40 Certain Arabs once came to Zikonia22

מא דמא ותרבא לדידן משכא ובישרא לדידכו

41 and gave the Jewish butchers some rams to slaughter, saying: 'The blood and the fat shall be for us,23

מב שלחה רב טובי בר רב מתנה לקמיה דרב יוסף

42 while the hide and the flesh shall be yours'.

מג כי האי גוונא מאי

43 R'Tobi B'R'Mattena sent this case to R'Joseph and asked.'

מד שלח ליה הכי א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל

44 What is the law in such a case as this? ' He sent back saying: 'Thus has Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The halachah is in accordance with the view of R'Jose'.24

מה הלכה כרבי יוסי

45 R'Aha the son of R'Awia asked R'Ashi: According to the view of R'Eliezer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of our Mishnah, who holds that even if a small portion of the animal belongs to a heathen the entire animal would be forbidden because of the idolatrous thoughts of the heathen.');">25

מו א"ל רב אחא בריה דרב אויא לרב אשי

46 what would be the law if a heathen gave a zuz26

מז לר"א יהיב ליה זוזא לטבח ישראל מאי

47 to a Jewish butcher?27

מח אמר ליה

48 - He replied: We must consider the case; If he [the idolater] is a powerful man whom the Israelite cannot put off [by returning his zuz], then the animal is forbidden;28

מט חזינן אי איניש אלמא הוא דלא מצי מדחי ליה אסור ואי לא א"ל

49 but if he is not [a powerful man], the Israelite would be able to say to him, [Strike] your head against the mountain!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'behold thy head and the mountain', i.e., 'either take back your zuz or do without it'. This being the case, the animal is permitted to be eaten whether the Israelite actually returns the money to the heathen or provides him with meat.');">29

נ רישיך והר:

50 <big>MISHNAH: </big>IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED [AN ANIMAL] AS A SACRIFICE TO MOUNTAINS.30

נא <big>מתני׳</big> השוחט לשם הרים לשם גבעות לשם ימים לשם נהרות לשם מדברות שחיטתו פסולה

51 HILLS, SEAS, RIVERS, OR DESERTS, THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter