Chullin — Daf 2a

מתני׳ הכל שוחטין ושחיטתן כשרה חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן שמא יקלקלו את שחיטתן וכולן ששחטו ואחרים רואין אותן שחיטתן כשרה:

גמ׳ הכל שוחטין לכתחלה ושחיטתן כשרה דיעבד

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי וכל הכל לכתחלה הוא אלא מעתה הכל ממירין אחד האנשים ואחד הנשים ה"נ דלכתחלה הוא והא כתיב (ויקרא כז, י) לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו טוב ברע או רע בטוב

התם כדקתני טעמא לא שהאדם רשאי להמיר אלא שאם המיר מומר וסופג את הארבעים

אלא הכל מעריכין ונערכין נודרין ונידרין הכי נמי דלכתחלה והא כתיב (דברים כג, כג) וכי תחדל לנדור לא יהיה בך חטא

וכתיב (קהלת ה, ד) טוב אשר לא תדור משתדור ולא תשלם ותניא טוב מזה ומזה שאינו נודר כל עיקר דברי רבי מאיר ר' יהודה אומר טוב מזה ומזה נודר ומשלם ואפי' רבי יהודה לא קאמר אלא באומר הרי זו אבל

MISHNAH. ALL MAY SLAUGHTER,1 AND THEIR SLAUGHTERING IS VALID, EXCEPT A DEAF — MUTE, AN IMBECILE OR A MINOR, LEST THEY INVALIDATE THEIR SLAUGHTERING; AND IF ANY OF THESE SLAUGHTERED WHILE OTHERS WERE STANDING OVER THEM, THEIR SLAUGHTERING IS VALID. STANDING OVER THEM, THEIR SLAUGHTERING IS VALID. GEMARA. The expression ALL MAY SLAUGHTER [implies a right] in the first instance, yet the expression AND THEIR SLAUGHTERING IS VALID [implies merely a sanction] after the act!2 — R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: Is it correct that the expression ‘ALL MAY . . .’ [implies a right] in the first instance? If so, [consider the Mishnah]: ‘All may change.3 whether man or woman’; is that also a right in the first instance? Is it not written: He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good?4 — No,5 for there the Mishnah goes on to explain: ‘Not that a person is allowed to change, but only that, if he has changed, the change is effective and he receives forty stripes’. Then, [consider this Mishnah]: ‘All may vow another's valuation and their valuation may be vowed by others, and they may vow another's worth and their worth may be vowed by others’;6 is that also a right in the first instance? Is it not written: And if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee?7 And it is further written: Better it is that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.8 And it has been taught: Better than both9 is he who does not vow at all; this is the opinion of R. Meir. R. Judah says. Better than both10 is he who vows and pays. Now, even R. Judah refers only to the case of one who says. ‘Behold, let this be a sacrifice’, is only after the act that the slaughtering is considered valid. This contradiction is not attempted to be answered until p. 3 infra; meanwhile R. Aha questions the soundness of the implications. value of any human being, which may include himself. The difference between ‘valuation’ and ‘worth’ is that the former term is applied to vows in the formula of which the word lrg — ‘valuation’ — is used. The amount in cases of valuation is fixed by the Torah. V, 4, as explained by the Baraitha, clearly shows.