Chullin

What about the meat of the paschal lamb and of other sacrifices?1 You are therefore obliged to say [that R. Meir's view is]: where it is possible to ascertain the facts2 one must do so, and only where it is impossible to ascertain the facts does one follow the majority. Our view then is the same: Where it is possible to ascertain the facts we must do so, and only where it is impossible to do so do we follow the majority. R. Nahman said in the name of Rab: If [a man] saw another slaughtering, and he watched him from beginning to end, he may eat of the slaughtering; otherwise he may not eat of the slaughtering. What are the circumstances of the case? If he knows that the slaughterer is conversant [with the rules of shechitah], then why is it necessary to watch over him? If he knows that the slaughterer Is not conversant [with the rules at all], then the case is obvious!3 Again, if he does not know whether the slaughterer is conversant [with the rules] or not, then should not the principle that ‘the majority of those who slaughter4 are qualified’ apply?5 For has it not been taught: If [a man] found a slaughtered chicken in the market, or if he said to his agent. ‘Go and slaughter [an animal]’, and subsequently found it slaughtered, it is presumed to have been ritually slaughtered? This proves that we apply the principle that ‘the majority of those who slaughter are qualified’; in our case, too, should we not apply this principle? — The actual facts of our case are that he knows that the slaughterer is not conversant [with the rules at all] and that the latter has cut one of the organs [of the throat] in his presence properly [according to ritual]. Now it might be said: since he has cut the one organ properly [he will cut] the other just as well; Rab therefore teaches us [that we may not assume such to be the case, because it might just as well be] that it happened merely by chance that he cut the one organ properly but in the cutting of the other he might pause or press. R. Dimi b. Joseph put to R. Nahman the following questions: If [a man] said to his agent: ‘Go and slaughter [an animal]’, and he subsequently found it slaughtered, what [is the law]? — He replied: It is presumed to have been ritually slaughtered. If [a man] said to his agent: ‘Go and set aside the terumah’,6 and he subsequently found it set aside, what [is the law]? — He replied: It is not presumed to have been validly set aside as terumah. [He thereupon contended:] What is your opinion? If you hold that there is a presumption that an agent carries out his instructions, then apply it also to the case of terumah;7 and if you hold that there is no presumption that an agent carries out his instructions, then even in the case of shechitah it should not be presumed! — He replied: If you will measure out for it a kor of salt [I will then explain it to you].8 Actually there is no presumption at all that an agent carries out his instructions; now in the case of shechitah, even if we take into account the possibility that a stranger, having overheard the instructions, went and slaughtered [the animal], there is no harm, because of the principle that ‘the majority of those who slaughter are qualified’; whereas in the case of terumah if we take into account the possibility that a stranger, having overheard the instructions, went and set aside the terumah [it would be invalid] for he would have done so without the consent of the owner, and [the law is that] if one sets aside terumah without the consent of the owner the terumah is not valid.9 Shall we say that the principle, ‘The majority of those who slaughter are qualified’, is the issue between the following Tannaim? For it has been taught: If [a man] lost his kids or his chickens and subsequently found them slaughtered. R. Judah forbids them [to be eaten], but R. Hanina the son of R. Jose the Galilean permits them [to be eaten]. Said Rabbi: R. Judah's view is acceptable [to me] in the case where they [the kids or chickens] were found on a rubbish heap,10 and R. Hanina's view is acceptable [to me] in the case where they were found in a house. May we not assume that the issue between them is the above principle; one [R. Hanina] accepts the principle that ‘the majority of those who slaughter are qualified’, and the other [R. Judah] does not accept this principle? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: It is not so. Both accept the principle that ‘the majority of those who slaughter are qualified’, and if [the lost kids and chickens were found] in a house, both agree that they are permitted [to be eaten]; and furthermore, if [they were found] on a public rubbish heap, both agree that they are forbidden; the issue between them is only in the case where [the were found] on the rubbish heap of a private house: one [R. Judah] is of the opinion that a man is wont to cast a nebelah on to the rubbish heap in his house, while the other [R. Hanina] is of the opinion that a man is not wont to cast a nebelah on to the rubbish heap in his house. 11 The Master stated: ‘Said Rabbi, R. Judah's view is acceptable [to me] in the case where they [the kids or chickens] were found on a rubbish heap’. Now what kind of rubbish heap is meant? Shall I say. A public rubbish heap? But you have said above that both agree that in such a case they are forbidden [to be eaten]! It must then be a rubbish heap of a private house. Now consider the next statement [of Rabbi]: ‘And R. Hanina's view is acceptable [to me] in the case where they were found in a house’. What is meant by ‘in a house’? Shall I say: In the house itself? But you have said above that in such a case both agree that they are permitted [to be eaten]! It must then be on the rubbish heap of a private house. Is there not then a contradiction between these two statements of Rabbi? — and of certain other sacrifices! distinction between two cases. Kor is a measure of capacity.