Chullin

This is a case of ‘it goes without saying’. It goes without saying that [the advice]. ‘Go and stab it’ [is good] for in that case there is no slaughtering at all.1 But against [the advice]. ‘Go and make it trefah’, one might argue and say that a slaughtering which does not render fit for food is nevertheless deemed a slaughtering, consequently its blood must be covered up; he therefore teaches us as R. Hiyya b. Abba [reported above].2 And why does not he who says that Rabbi told him, ‘Go and stab it’, accept the other view that he told him, ‘Go and make it trefah’? Should you say because he [Rabbi] is of the opinion that a slaughtering which does not render fit for food is deemed a slaughtering. [this cannot be, for] R. Hiyya b. Abba reported in the name of R. Johanan that Rabbi approved of R. Simeon's view in connection with the law of covering up the blood and therefore stated it in our Mishnah as the view of ‘the Sages’!3 — This is a case of ‘it goes without saying’. Thus, it goes without saying [that the advice] ‘Go and make it trefah’ [is good], for a slaughtering which does not render the animal fit for food is no slaughtering. But against [the advice] ‘Go and stab it’ one might argue and say that by Biblical law a bird does not require to be slaughtered, and stabbing is all the slaughtering that is required, consequently the blood must be covered up; he therefore teaches us [that this cannot be so because of the verse] ‘As I have commanded thee’.4 How came it that his flax was infested with worms? Did not Rabin b. Abba (others say. R. Abin b. Shabba) declare that from the time that the people of the Exile5 came up [to Palestine]6 there ceased to be [in Palestine] shooting stars, earthquakes, storms and thunders, their wines never turned sour and their flax was never blighted; and the Rabbis set their eyes upon R. Hiyya and his sons?7 — Their merits benefitted the whole world but not themselves. Even as Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Every day a Heavenly Voice goes forth and proclaims, ‘The whole world is provided with food only on account of my son Hanina,8 while my son Hanina is satisfied with one kab9 of carob fruit from one Sabbath eve to the other’. MISHNAH. IF A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECILE OR A MINOR SLAUGHTERED WHILE OTHERS WATCHED THEM, ONE10 MUST COVER UP THE BLOOD; BUT IF THEY WERE ALONE. ONE NEED NOT COVER IT UP.11 SIMILARLY WITH THE LAW OF ‘IT AND ITS YOUNG’: IF THESE SLAUGHTERED WHILE OTHERS WATCHED THEM, IT IS FORBIDDEN TO SLAUGHTER AFTER THEM [THE YOUNG];12 BUT IF THEY WERE ALONE. R. MEIR PERMITS TO SLAUGHTER AFTER THEM [THE YOUNG]. BUT THE RABBIS FORBID IT; THEY AGREE, HOWEVER. THAT IF A PERSON DID SLAUGHTER [AFTER THEM], HE HAS NOT INCURRED FORTY STRIPES.13 GEMARA. As to the Rabbis why is it that in the first clause they do not dissent and in the second clause they do?14 — Because in the first clause, if they were to say that the blood must be covered up, people might think that the slaughtering was a valid one and would even eat of what they slaughtered. Then in the second clause too, since the Rabbis say that it is forbidden to slaughter [the young] after them, people might think that the slaughtering was a valid one and would even eat of what they slaughtered! — In the second clause people would say that he does not need any meat.15 Then in the first clause, too, people might say [that he is covering up the blood] only to keep his yard clean? — Could this be said if he slaughtered on a dunghill? or could this be said if he came to ask for a ruling?16 — But according to your own argument, even in the case of the second clause, what would you say if he came to ask for a ruling?17 Rather we must say that the Rabbis differ with the whole teaching [of the Mishnah], but they merely waited until R. Meir had completely stated his case and then they expressed their dissent. Now as to the view of the Rabbis, it is clear that they apply [in a case of doubt] the stricter rule; but what is the reason for R. Meir's ruling? — R. Jacob stated in the name of R. Johanan that, according to R. Meir, one would be culpable for [eating] nebelah [if one were to eat] of their slaughtering.18 Why is it?R. Ammi answered: Because in the majority of cases what they do is bungled. R. Papa said to R. Huna the son of R. Joshua (others say: R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said to R. Papa). Why in the majority of cases? The same would be the result if [this were so] only in a minority of cases, for since R. Meir takes into account the minority, by adding the minority to the presumption19 the majority is shaken? For we have learnt: If a child was found by the side of dough with a piece of dough in his hand, R. Meir declares it clean but the Rabbis declare it unclean, because it is a child's nature to meddle.20 And we asked. What is R. Meir's reason? [And the answer was given,] He is of the opinion that most children meddle but a minority do not; now this dough is presumed to be clean,21 happened to R. Hiyya himself that his flax was infested with worms? slaughtered, because of the doubt as to their slaughtering, just as they rule in the final clause. the deaf-mute etc. was valid. first animal valid. slaughtering is bad so that the animal is nebelah. slaughtered. Here, therefore, even if it were held that the majority of children do not bungle what they undertake to do, there is however a minority of some who do, and this, coupled with the presumed prohibition of the animal, would carry more weight than the majority, and their slaughtering would be invalid. The question therefore is: why was it necessary to hold that the majority of children bungle what they do? touched the dough, for he holds some in his hand, and since it is the habit of most children to meddle and play about among refuse and unclean things, this child in all probability was unclean and so rendered the rest of the dough unclean. Tosaf. interpret thus: it is quite certain that this child was unclean for he is always being fondled by women and by menstruant women too, and since it is the habit of most children to meddle with dough, this child in all probability touched the dough and so rendered it unclean. The less probable view, by taking the minority into consideration, would be to say that this child did not himself touch the dough but a piece was given to him by some person.