חולין 3 — parallel

3:1

[signifying that] the sword has the same degree of uncleanness as the slain person. The slaughterer therefore, being a primary source of uncleanness, would defile the knife, and the knife in turn would defile the flesh! — It must be that he became unclean through contact with a [dead] reptile. If you wish, however, I can even say that he became unclean by touching a corpse, but he prepared a reed haulm and slaughtered therewith; for it has been taught: One may slaughter with any instrument, with a flint, with glass or with a reed haulm. Abaye said: This is the interpretation of the Mishnah. ALL MAY SLAUGHTER: even a Cuthean. This applies only where an Israelite is standing over him; but if [an Israelite] is merely going in and out he may not slaughter. If, however, he did slaughter, one cuts off an olive's bulk of the flesh and gives it to him; if he ate it, others may also eat of his slaughtering; if he did not eat it, others may not eat of his slaughtering. EXCEPT A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECILE OR A MINOR: whose slaughtering, even after the act, is invalid, lest they pause, press or thrust. [Now on this interpretation, when the Mishnah continues:] AND IF ANY OF THESE SLAUGHTERED, to which persons does this statement refer? 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 a Cuthean, surely you have said that if an Israelite is standing over him he may slaughter in the first instance! — This is a difficulty. Said Raba, [But is it correct to state that], if an Israelite is going in and out [the Cuthean] has not the right [to slaughter] in the first instance? Have we not learnt: If one left a heathen in one's wine shop and an Israelite was going in and out [of the shop], the wine is permitted? — Does it teach there ‘one may leave’? It says: ‘if one left’, which is only a sanction after the act. You can, however, derive it from this [Mishnah]: There is no need for the supervisor to sit and watch the whole time; even if he keeps going in and out, [the wine] is permitted! Rather, said Raba, this is the interpretation of the Mishnah. ALL MAY SLAUGHTER: even a Cuthean. This applies only where an Israelite is going in and out [at the time]; but if [an Israelite] came and found that [the Cuthean] had slaughtered, one must cut off an olive's bulk of the flesh and give it to him; if he ate it, others may also eat of his slaughtering; if he did not eat it, others may not eat of his slaughtering. EXCEPT A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECILE OR A MINOR: whose slaughtering, even after the act, is invalid, lest he pause, press or thrust. [Now on this interpretation, when the Mishnah continues:] AND IF ANY OF THESE SLAUGHTERED, to which persons does this statement refer? 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 then to a Cuthean, surely you have said that though an Israelite is [merely] going in and out he may slaughter in the first instance! — This is a difficulty. R. Ashi said: This is the interpretation of the Mishnah. ALL MAY SLAUGHTER: even an Israelite apostate. In what respect is he an apostate? — In that he eats carrion in order to satisfy his appetite. [This holds good], provided the requirement of Raba is fulfilled; for Raba said: In the case of an Israelite apostate who eats carrion in order that he may satisfy his appetite,

—

3:2

one prepares the knife and gives it to him, and then we may eat of his slaughtering. But if the knife was not prepared and given to him he may not slaughter. If, however, he did slaughter, the knife should be examined now; if it is found to be satisfactory, we may eat of his slaughtering; otherwise we may not eat of his slaughtering. EXCEPT A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECILE OR A MINOR: whose slaughtering, even after the act, is invalid, lest they pause, press or thrust. [Now on this interpretation, when the Mishnah continues:] AND IF ANY OF THESE SLAUGHTERED, to which persons does this statement refer? 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 Israelite apostate, surely you have said that if a knife was prepared and given to him, he has the right to slaughter in the first instance! And if [on the other hand] a knife was not prepared for him, well then, if the knife is here it can be examined now, and if it is not here, what is the advantage if others were standing over him at the time? Perhaps he slaughtered with a notched knife! This is a difficulty. Rabina said: This is the interpretation of the Mishnah. ALL MAY SLAUGHTER: [that is to say], all who are qualified may slaughter, even though it is not known whether they are experienced or not: provided that we are satisfied that they are able to recite the rules of Shechitah. But if we do not know whether they are able to recite the rules of Shechitah, they may not slaughter; if, however, they did slaughter, they are to be examined now. If they are able to recite the rules of Shechitah, one may eat of their slaughtering; otherwise one may not eat of their slaughtering. EXCEPT A DEAF-MUTE. AN IMBECILE OR A MINOR: whose slaughtering, even after the act, is invalid, lest they pause, press or thrust. Now on this interpretation, when the Mishnah continues] AND IF ANY OF THESE SLAUGHTERED. To which persons does this statement refer? 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 those who are not qualified, surely you have said that it is sufficient if they are examined [after the slaughtering]! — [It must be] that they are not present to be examined. Some there are who say: Rabina said: This is the interpretation of the Mishnah. ALL MAY SLAUGHTER: [that is to say], all who are experienced may slaughter, even though it is not known whether they are qualified or not. This applies only where they have slaughtered two or three times in our presence and were not overcome by faintness. But if they have not slaughtered two or three times in our presence, they may not slaughter, lest they are overcome by faintness. If, however, one of these did slaughter and said: ‘I am certain I was not overcome by faintness’, his slaughtering is valid. EXCEPT A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECILE OR A MINOR: whose slaughtering, even after the act, is invalid, lest they pause, press or thrust. [Now on this interpretation, when the Mishnah continues:] AND IF ANY OF THESE SLAUGHTERED, to which persons does this statement refer? 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 those who are not experienced, surely you have said that in such cases it is sufficient if they said: ‘I am certain I was not overcome by faintness’! [It must be] that they are not present to be questioned. Rabina and Rabbah b. Ulla do not interpret [the Mishnah] in the ways suggested by Abaye or by Raba or by R. Ashi, because the latter find a difficulty in interpreting the expression: AND IF ANY OF THESE SLAUGHTERED. All do not agree with Rabbah b. Ulla's interpretation, because, according to the one version which suggested that [our Mishnah] here is the source of the rule, on the contrary, [they say] that other [Mishnah] is the source of the rule, since it is in the tractate which deals with consecrated things; and according to the other version which suggested that the other [Mishnah] is the source of the rule but that [our Mishnah] here refers to the case of an unclean person slaughtering consecrated beasts merely incidentally because it deals with the case of an unclean person slaughtering a common beast, [they say], the case of an unclean man slaughtering a common beast was unnecessary [to be taught] because [the correct view is that] common things kept in the cleanness proper to hallowed things are not considered hallowed. All do not agree with Rabina's interpretation, because, according to the one version which ruled that only those qualified may slaughter, but not those unqualified, [they hold the principle that] the majority of those who slaughter are qualified; and according to the other version which ruled that only those who are known to be experienced may slaughter but not those who are not so known, [they say] the danger of being overcome by faintness [in slaughtering] is too remote to be apprehended. Raba does not agree with .Abaye's interpretation because of the objection which he raised. Abaye does not agree with Raba's interpretation because, in that other case the heathen is not handling [the wine], while in our case the Cuthean is handling [the beast]. R. Ashi does not agree with either of these interpretations because he holds the view that the Cutheans were lion-proselytes. Abaye does not agree with R. Ashi's interpretation because he does not accept Raba's statement. The question, however, remains: Why does not Raba interpret the Mishnah in accordance with his own statement? — Raba's interpretation merely follows up the argument of Abaye but he himself does not accept it. Our Rabbis taught: The slaughtering by a Cuthean is valid. This applies only where an Israelite was standing over him [at the time]; but if he [the Israelite] came and found that the Cuthean had already slaughtered, he cuts off an olive's bulk of the flesh and gives it to him; if he ate it, then we may eat of his slaughtering; if he did not, then we may not eat of his slaughtering. And so, too, if [the Israelite] found in the possession of a Cuthean

—