Chullin — Daf 5b

(ויקרא ד, כז) מעם הארץ פרט למומר

ר"ש בן יוסי אומר משום ר"ש (ויקרא ד, כב) אשר לא תעשינה בשגגה ואשם השב מידיעתו מביא קרבן על שגגתו אינו שב מידיעתו אינו מביא קרבן על שגגתו

ואמרינן מאי בינייהו ואמר רב המנונא מומר לאכול חלב והביא קרבן על הדם איכא בינייהו

חדא בחטאת וחדא בעולה וצריכי דאי אשמעינן חטאת משום דלכפרה הוא אבל עולה דדורון הוא אימא לקבל מיניה ואי אשמעינן עולה משום דלאו חיובא הוא אבל חטאת דחיובא הוא אימא לקבל מיניה צריכא

וכל היכא דכתיב בהמה גריעותא היא והכתיב (תהלים לו, ז) אדם ובהמה תושיע ה' ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב אלו בני אדם שהן ערומין בדעת ומשימין עצמן כבהמה התם כתיב אדם ובהמה הכא בהמה לחודיה כתיב

וכל היכא דכתיב אדם ובהמה מעליותא היא והא כתיב (ירמיהו לא, כז) וזרעתי את בית ישראל זרע אדם וזרע בהמה התם הא חלקיה קרא זרע אדם לחוד וזרע בהמה לחוד

(סימן נקלף)

א"ר חנן א"ר יעקב בר אידי א"ר יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא ר"ג ובית דינו נמנו על שחיטת כותי ואסרוה א"ל רבי זירא לרבי יעקב בר אידי שמא לא שמע רבי אלא בשאין ישראל עומד על גביו א"ל דמי האי מרבנן כדלא גמירי אינשי שמעתא בשאין ישראל עומד על גביו למימרא בעי

קבלה מיניה או לא קבלה מיניה ת"ש דאמר ר"נ בר יצחק א"ר אסי אני ראיתי את רבי יוחנן שאכל משחיטת כותי אף רבי אסי אכל משחיטת כותי ותהי בה רבי זירא לא שמיעא להו דאי הוה שמיעא להו הוו מקבלי לה או דלמא שמיע להו ולא קבלוה

הדר פשיט לנפשיה מסתברא דשמיע להו ולא קבלוה דאי ס"ד לא שמיע להו ואי הוה שמיע להו הוו מקבלי לה היכי מסתייעא מילתא למיכל איסורא השתא בהמתן של צדיקים אין הקב"ה מביא תקלה על ידן צדיקים עצמן לא כל שכן

Of the common people1 excludes an apostate.2 R. Simon b. Jose said in the name of R. Simeon: The verse: And doeth through error any of the things which the Lord his God hath commanded not to be done, and is guilty,3 implies that only he who repents when he becomes conscious of his sin brings a sacrifice4 for his error, but he who does not repent on becoming conscious of his sin does not bring a sacrifice for his error. And it was asked: What practical difference is there between them?5 And R. Hamnuna replied: The difference between them lies in the case of one who, being an apostate in respect of the eating of forbidden fat, brings a sacrifice for having eaten blood [in error]!6 — [The rule is derived from both passages], but one7 speaks of the sin-offering, while the other of the burnt offering;8 and both are required. For if it were taught only in respect of a sin-offering, it would have been argued that the reason why he [the apostate] is precluded is because a sin-offering is brought for an atonement,9 but a burnt-offering, being in the nature of a gift [to the Lord], we might say should be accepted from him. And on the other hand, if it were taught only in respect of a burnt-offering, it would have been argued that the reason why he is precluded is because there is no obligation on his part to offer it, but a sin-offering, being obligatory, we might say should be accepted from him. [Therefore both statements] are required. But is it a general rule that whenever Scripture uses ‘cattle’10 it implies contempt? But is it not written: Man and cattle. Thou preservest, O Lord,11 and Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: This verse refers to those who are wise in understanding and conduct themselves humbly like cattle? — There is this difference; in the latter verse it reads: ‘Man and cattle’, but in our text it says, cattle by itself. But is it a general rule that whenever Scripture uses ‘Man and cattle’ it implies merit? But is it not written: And I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of mail and with the seed of cattle?12 — In this latter case Scripture clearly distinguishes between the two, referring to the seed of man separately and to the seed of cattle separately. (Mnemonic: Niklaf[P]).13 R. Hanan reported in the name of R. Jacob b. Idi, who reported in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, who reported in the name of Bar Kappara, as follows: R. Gamaliel and his Court took a vote concerning the slaughtering by a Cuthean, and declared it invalid. Thereupon R. Zera suggested to R. Jacob b. Idi: May it not be that my Master heard this ruling only in the case where no Israelite was standing over him? — He retorted: This student is as one who has never studied the law!14 Where no Israelite was standing over him is it necessary to rule [that it is invalid]. Now, the question arises: Did R. Zera accept [the retort]15 or not? — Come and hear: R. Nahman b. Isaac reported in the name of R. Assi as follows: I saw R. Johanan eating the flesh of an animal slaughtered by a Cuthean. Even R. Assi ate of the flesh of an animal slaughtered by a Cuthean. Now R. Zera was astonished at this. Could it be that they16 had not heard of this ruling [of the Court of R. Gamaliel], but had they heard of it they would have abided by it; or did they know of it but did not accept it? In the end R. Zera came to the conclusion: It is reasonable to suppose that they knew of it but did not accept it; for if you were to say that they had not heard of it, but had they known of it they would have accepted it, it is difficult [to understand] how it should come about that such righteous men should eat something forbidden. If the Holy One, Blessed be He, would not permit the beast of the righteous to sin in error.17 how much less the righteous themselves! shall bring for his offering a goat. of the Torah is precluded from offering a sacrifice. view it is, for he is not an apostate in respect of that particular law for which he is bringing his sacrifice. It is clear, however, that the rule precluding an apostate from offering sacrifices is derived from the verse quoted in this Baraitha and not from the verse quoted above ‘Of you’. brought voluntarily as a gift to the Lord. merit like animals. referring to the ignorant common people. reported. N = Hanan, K = Jackob, L = Levi, FP = Kappara. abide by it.