Chullin

This is what he [Rabbi] meant to say: The view of R. Judah is acceptable to R. Hanina the son of R. Jose the Galilean in the case where they were found on a public rubbish heap; for the latter differs from R. Judah only in the case where they were found on the rubbish heap of a private house, but agrees with him if they were found on a public rubbish heap. And the view of R. Hanina is acceptable etc.1 EXCEPT A DEAF-MUTE. AN IMBECILE OR A MINOR, LEST THEY INVALIDATE THEIR SLAUGHTERING. It does not say: ‘Lest they have invalidated’, it says. LEST THEY INVALIDATE; this, said Raba, proves that one may not give them [even] common2 beasts [to slaughter] in the first instance.3 AND IF ANY OF THESE SLAUGHTERED WHILE OTHERS WERE STAN DING OVER THEM, THEIR SLAUGHTERING IS VALID. Who is the author of this statement [which suggests] that one does not require to have the intention to slaughter according to ritual?4 — Raba answered, It is R. Nathan. For Oshaia, junior of the collegiates,5 learnt: If one threw a knife intending to thrust it into a wall, and [in its flight] it slaughtered an animal in the usual way. R. Nathan declares the slaughtering valid; but the Sages declare it invalid. And [Oshaia] having learnt this [Baraitha] added that the halachah was in accordance with R. Nathan's view. But do we not require a forward and backward motion [in slaughtering]?6 — There was here a forward and backward motion7 in the usual way. R. Hiyya b. Abba reported that R. Johanan raised the following question: Does the law recognize the [expression of the] intention of a minor or not?8 — Said R. Ammi to R. Hiyya. He might as well have put the question in regard to the act [of a minor].9 Why did he not put the question in regard to the act [of a minor]? [Presumably] because we have learnt that the law recognizes the act [of a minor as sufficient evidence of his intention]; for the same reason he need not have put the question in regard to the [expression of the] intention of a minor, because we have learnt that the law does not recognize the [expression of the] intention [of a minor as sufficient evidence of his intention]! For we have learnt:10 Acorns or pomegranates or nuts which children hollowed out in order to measure sand therewith, or which they fashioned Into scales, are susceptible to uncleanness,11 because the law recogn7 zes the act [of a minor as sufficient evidence of his intention] remain in the text they should be expanded thus: And the view of R. Hanina is acceptable to R. Judah in the case where they were found in a house, for the latter only differs from it. Hanina in the case where they were found on the rubbish heap of a private house, but agrees ‘with him if they were found in a house. liable at any moment to infringe the rules of shechitah. him, clearly is of opinion that the intention to slaughter according,o ritual is not essential, since an imbecile is incapable of forming such an intention. again, now in a backward motion. It is not here disputed that it is sufficient if the necessary intention was formed by a minor; the question asked is: what evidence does the law require before it is satisfied that the minor has in fact formed the necessary intention? Is a minor's statement as to his intention sufficient evidence of that intention? Throughout this discussion Rashi's interpretation has been followed; v. however Tos. s.v. hgch,u. expressed intention is evidenced by some unequivocal act on his part. intention of the children is clearly seen from their act of hollowing out the nuts.