Chullin — Daf 41b

יחקה את הצדוקים:

גמ׳ אין שוחטין לא לתוך וכו': מאי שנא לתוך ימים דלא דאמרי לשרא דימא קא שחיט לתוך עוגה של מים נמי אמרי לבבואה קא שחיט אמר רבא בעכורים שנו:

אין שוחטין לגומא וכו': והא אמרת אין שוחטין לגומא כלל אמר אביי רישא בגומא שבשוק

אמר ליה רבא והא מדקתני סיפא ובשוק לא יעשה כן מכלל דרישא לאו בשוק עסקינן

אלא אמר רבא הכי קאמר אין שוחטין לגומא כל עיקר והרוצה לנקר חצרו כיצד הוא עושה עושה מקום חוץ לגומא ושוחט ודם שותת ויורד לגומא ובשוק לא יעשה כן שלא יחקה את הצדוקים

תניא כוותיה דרבא היה מהלך בספינה ואין לו מקום בספינה לשחוט מוציא ידו חוץ לספינה ושוחט ודם שותת ויורד על דופני הספינה ואין שוחט לגומא כל עיקר

והרוצה לנקר חצרו כיצד הוא עושה עושה מקום חוץ לגומא ושוחט ודם שותת ויורד לגומא ובשוק לא יעשה כן משום שנאמר (ויקרא יח, ג) ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו ואם עשה כן צריך בדיקה אחריו:

מתני׳ השוחט לשם עולה לשם זבחים לשם אשם תלוי לשם פסח לשם תודה שחיטתו פסולה ור"ש מכשיר

שנים אוחזין בסכין ושוחטין אחד לשום אחד מכל אלו ואחד לשום דבר כשר שחיטתו פסולה השוחט לשם חטאת לשם אשם ודאי לשם בכור לשם מעשר לשם תמורה שחיטתו כשרה

זה הכלל כל דבר שנידר ונידב השוחט לשמו אסור ושאינו נידר ונידב השוחט לשמו כשר:

גמ׳ השוחט לשם עולה אשם תלוי בר נידר ונידב הוא אמר ר' יוחנן הא מני רבי אלעזר היא דאמר מתנדב אדם אשם תלוי בכל יום

פסח בר נידב ונידר הוא זמנא קביעא ליה אמר ר' אושעיא שאני פסח הואיל והפרשתו כל השנה כולה

א"ר ינאי לא שנו אלא תמימים אבל בעלי מומין מידע ידיע ור' יוחנן אמר אפי' בעלי מומין נמי זימנין דרמי ליה מידי אמומא ולא ידיע:

השוחט לשם חטאת: א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא שאינו מחוייב חטאת אבל מחוייב חטאת אימא לשום חטאתו הוא עושה והא לא קאמר לשם חטאתי אמר ר' אבהו באומר לשם חטאתי:

לשם תמורה: אמר ר"א לא שנו אלא שאין לו זבח בתוך ביתו אבל יש לו זבח בתוך ביתו אימא אמורי אמיר ביה והא לא קאמר לשם תמורת זבחי א"ר אבהו באומר לשם תמורת זבחי:

זה הכלל: לאתויי מאי לאתויי עולת נזיר דמהו דתימא הא לא נדר אימר נדר בצינעא

ושאינו נידר ונידב לאתויי עולת יולדת

א"ר אלעזר לא שנו אלא שאין לו אשה אבל יש לו אשה אימר לשמה הוא עושה והא לא קאמר לשם עולת אשתי א"ר אבהו באומר לשם עולת אשתי

פשיטא

TO FOLLOW THE WAYS OF THE HERETICS.1 GEMARA. ONE MAY NOT SLAUGHTER INTO THE SEA. Why is it that a person may not slaughter into the sea? It is, is it not, because it might be said that he is slaughtering to the deity of the sea? Then is it not the same when a person slaughters into a pool of water, for it might be said that he is slaughtering to the image [reflected in the water?] — Raba answered: This was taught only regarding turbid water.2 ONE MAY NOT SLAUGHTER AT ALL INTO A PIT, YET A PERSON MAY DIG A PIT etc. Have you not just said that one may not slaughter into a pit at all? — Abaye answered: The first clause refers to a pit in the street. Said to him Raba: Since the final clause reads: IN THE STREET, HOWEVER, HE SHOULD NOT DO SO, it follows that the first clause does not refer to [a pit in] the street! — Raba therefore answered: This is the interpretation: ONE MAY NOT SLAUGHTER AT ALL INTO A PIT. But if a person desires to keep his yard clean, what should he do? He should prepare a place close to the pit and slaughter there, and the blood may be allowed to trickle down into the pit. IN THE STREET, HOWEVER, HE SHOULD NOT DO SO LEST HE APPEAR TO FOLLOW THE WAYS OF THE HERETICS. A Baraitha was taught which supports Raba's view: If a person was travelling on a ship and there was no place on the ship where he might slaughter, he may stretch out his hand over the side of the ship and slaughter there, and the blood is allowed to trickle down the sides of the ship [into the sea]. A person may not slaughter at all into a pit; but if he desires to keep his yard clean what should he do? He should prepare a place close to the pit and slaughter there, and the blood is allowed to trickle down into the pit. In the street, however, he should not do so, for it is written: Neither shall ye walk in their statutes,3 if he did so, there must be an enquiry concerning him.4 MISHNAH. IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED [AN UNCONSECRATED ANIMAL OUTSIDE THE TEMPLE COURT] DECLARING IT TO BE5 A BURNT-OFFERING OR A PEACE-OFFERING OR A GUILT-OFFERING FOR A DOUBTFUL Sln6 OR THE PASSOVER-OFFERING OR A THANK-OFFERING, THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID;7 R. SIMEON. HOWEVER, DECLARES IT VALID.8 IF TWO PERSONS HELD ONE KNIFE AND SLAUGHTERED [AN UNCONSECRATED ANIMAL OUTSIDE THE TEMPLE COURT], ONE DECLARING IT TO BE ONE OF THE ABOVE AND THE OTHER INTENDING IT FOR A LEGITIMATE PURPOSE, THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID. IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED [AN UNCONSECRATED ANIMAL OUTSIDE THE TEMPLE COURT] DECLARING IT TO BE A SIN-OFFERING OR A GUILT-OFFERING9 OR A FIRSTLING OR THE TITHE [OF CATTLE] OR A SUBSTITUTE OFFERING. THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID.10 THIS IS THE RULE: IF ONE SLAUGHTERED AN ANIMAL DECLARING IT TO BE A SACRIFICE WHICH CAN BE BROUGHT EITHER AS A VOTIVE OR A FREEWILL-OFFERING IT IS INVALID, BUT IF HE DECLARES IT TO BE A SACRIFICE WHICH CANNOT BE BROUGHT EITHER AS A VOTIVE OR A FREEWILL-OFFERING IT IS VALID. GEMARA. IF ONE SLAUGHTERED . . . DECLARING IT TO BE A BURNT OFFERING etc. Can a guilt-offering for a doubtful sin be brought as a votive or as a freewill-offering? — R. Johanan answered. The author of this view is R. Eliezer, who maintains that a person can offer a guilt-offering for a doubtful sin daily. Can the passover-offering be brought as a votive or as a freewill-offering [at any time]? Is not its time fixed?11 — R. Oshaia answered, It is different with the passover-offering, for it may be set aside for this purpose at any time during the year.12 R. Jannai said: The Mishnah refers only to unblemished animals, but in the case of blemished animals everybody knows [that it cannot be an offering].13 R. Johanan, however, says that it refers even to blemished animals, for he might sometimes cover up the blemish and it would not be noticeable. IF ONE SLAUGHTERED . . . DECLARING IT TO BE A SIN-OFFERING. R. Johanan said: The Mishnah refers only to the case where he [the slaughterer] was not obliged to bring a sin-offering, but where he was obliged to bring a sin-offering it might be said that he is slaughtering the animal as his sin-offering.14 But he did not say. ‘I declare it to be my sin-offering’? — R. Abbahu answered: We must suppose that he said: ‘I declare it to be my sin-offering’.15 A SUBSTITUTE OFFERING. R. Eleazar said: The Mishnah refers only to the case where he did not have a consecrated animal at home, but where he had a consecrated animal at home it might be said that he has just now substituted this animal for it.14 But he did not say. ‘I declare it to be a substitute for the consecrated animal I have at home’? — R. Abbahu answered: We must suppose here also that he said: ‘I declare it to be a substitute for the consecrated animal I have at home.’ 16 THIS IS THE RULE. What does it include? — It includes the burnt-offering of a Nazirite.17 For you might have said that [everyone knows that] he has not vowed to be a Nazirite [so that his words are meaningless];18 it is therefore included, because it is possible that he vowed in secret [to become a Nazirite]. IF HE DECLARES IT TO BE A SACRIFICE WHICH CANNOT BE BROUGHT EITHER AS A VOTIVE OR FREEWILL-OFFERING IT IS VALID. What does this include? — It includes the burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth.19 R. Eleazar said: This is so only when he has no wife, but if he has a wife it might be said that he is slaughtering it [for a burnt-offering] on her behalf.20 But he did not say. ‘I declare it to be the burnt-offering of my wife’? — R. Abbahu answered: We must suppose that he said: ‘I declare it to be the burnt-offering of my wife’. Is not this obvious? must be atoned for by a sin-offering. This sacrifice is merely suspensive until the doubt will be settled and it will be known whether this person must bring a sin-offering as well or not. might suppose that the slaughterer has just now consecrated the animal for the particular offering mentioned and would believe that it is permitted to slaughter a consecrated animal outside the sanctuary. For this reason the Rabbis declared the slaughtering invalid. incumbent upon, and can only be brought by those who have committed a sinful act. These as well as the firstling (v. Deut. XIV, 23), the tithe (v. Lev. XXVII, 32) and the substitute offering (ibid. 10) are sacrifices of which the public are generally aware. Now as the public have no knowledge of this sacrifice to which the slaughterer refers it is obvious to all that he is not speaking the truth, so that there is no fear that an onlooker would receive a false impression. as the Passover-offering but as a peace-offering. And since it is being slaughtered outside the sanctuary the onlooker would receive a wrong impression. was not obliged to bring a sin-offering, his words are meaningless and the slaughtering is valid. consecrated animal in his home.