Chullin 13b — the Talmud in English

And some say: even ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

his sons are mamzerim, since he is not particular about his wife and makes her ownerless, and she commits adultery with others.

поскольку он не следит за своей женой, предоставляет ее другим, и она прелюбодействует с другими.

And the first tanna of the beraita, who did not say that his sons are mamzerim, because he holds:

барайты, который не сказал, что его сыновья — мамзеры, считает, что

he does not make his wife ownerless

at all.

The Master said,

in the Mishna:

the ritual slaughter of an idolater is an animal carcass,

and we infer from this wording that it is not forbidden to derive benefit from it.

And the Gemara discusses it:

But let us be concerned lest

this idolater

be a heretic

and devoted to idolatry; and why should his ritual slaughter not be forbidden to derive benefit from it? And we answer:

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: There are no heretics among the nations of idolaters.

For the gentiles are not devoted to idolatry.

And we raise an objection:

But we see that there are

heretics among the gentiles!

And we answer:

Say,

this is what Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha:

Most idolaters are not heretics.

Rather, the heretics are a minority among the gentiles; therefore we are not concerned lest this gentile be a heretic, because we are not concerned for a minority.

And Rabba bar Avuha, who said that most gentiles are not heretics,

holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The gentiles outside the Land of Israel—

are not idolaters; rather, the practice of their ancestors is in their hands.

That is, they perform the act of worship just as their ancestors performed it, but they do not believe in idolatry. Therefore, even those gentiles in the Land of Israel who worship idols are also not in the category of heretics, for they are not so devoted to idolatry that their intention during ritual slaughter would be for the sake of idolatry; therefore, their ritual slaughter is not forbidden to derive benefit from it.

Rav Yosef bar Minyomi said in the name of Rav Naḥman: There are no heretics among the nations

of idolaters! For even those gentiles who are heretics are nevertheless not subject to the law of a “heretic.”

And the Gemara discusses it:

For what purpose!?

With regard to which law are they not subject to the law of a heretic?

If you say, with regard to

the matter of

ritual slaughter,

that their ritual slaughter is not forbidden to derive benefit from it—

This is difficult:

Now, concerning the ritual slaughter of a Jewish heretic, you say

что она

it is forbidden

to derive benefit from it. Concerning the ritual slaughter

of a gentile heretic, is it necessary

to say that it is forbidden to derive benefit from it? For the gentile devoted to idolatry is more devoted to it than a Jew.

And we answer:

Rather,

here it is speaking

with regard to

том,

lowering

him into a pit. For if the heretic is a Jew, the law is that he is lowered into a pit [that is, he is killed directly], but a gentile who is a heretic is not lowered into a pit.

And we raise an objection:

Now,

a Jewish

heretic is lowered;

a gentile

heretic—need it be said?

And we answer:

Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said:

With regard to this matter Rav Naḥman said that the gentiles are not subject to the law of a heretic:

to accept a sacrifice from them.

For if a Jewish heretic brought a sacrifice, we do not accept it from him; but a gentile, even if he is a heretic, we accept a sacrifice from him, as it explains below.

For it was taught:

It is written [Leviticus 1]: “When a person brings an offering from you,” and we expound: “

From you”—

but not

из

from all of you! To exclude the apostate,

from whom we do not accept a sacrifice.

And at the end of that beraita it is stated that one who apostatized only with regard to pouring wine for idolatry—that is, a heretic—even if he does not transgress the other mitzvot, we do not accept a sacrifice from him.

And the beraita continues: Since the exclusion

“from you”

to exclude the apostate was stated only with regard to the sacrifices of Jews, and not with regard to the sacrifices of idolaters, it follows: specifically,

“among you I have distinguished”

between fit people and apostates,

but not among idolaters.

For among them there is no distinction; rather, we accept sacrifices from all of them, even from the heretics among them. And this is the meaning of Rav Naḥman’s statement: There is no law of a heretic among gentiles.

And we examine this beraita:

From where

do we know that gentiles are superior to Jews with regard to sacrifices, because the exclusion of “from you” was stated only concerning Jews?

Perhaps

on the contrary, the gentiles were not excluded because

this is what the verse says:

the verse says:

From Israel, from the righteous

among them—

accept

a sacrifice; whereas

from the wicked—

do not accept at all

sacrifices from them!?

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind

that sacrifices are not accepted from gentiles.

For it was taught,

it is written: “Any man, any man of the House of Israel who brings his offering.” And we expound: It could have written “

a man.” What does “any man, any man” teach?—

To include gentiles, who vow vows and freewill offerings like Jews.

We learned in the Mishna: The ritual slaughter of idolaters is an animal carcass

and imparts impurity

through carrying.

And the Gemara discusses it: Why does the Mishna need to teach us that it imparts impurity through carrying? After all,

it is obvious, since it is an animal carcass,

it is

impure through carrying?

And we answer:

Rava said:

The fact that the Mishna teaches that it imparts impurity through carrying was not needed for its own sake, but in order to infer another law, and

this is how the Mishna teaches:

Мишна:

This,

the ordinary ritual slaughter of an idolater,

imparts impurity through carrying.

And there is another

slaughter

of an idolater

that imparts impurity even through a tent.

And which is it?

This

is the slaughter in which the gentile intended that it be for the sake of idolatry, whereby the animal becomes

an idolatrous offering,

and the Mishna is

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira,

who holds that an idolatrous offering imparts impurity through a tent.

Some say:

The reverse.

Rava said:

The fact that the Mishna teaches “it imparts impurity through carrying” comes to teach us that all slaughter performed by gentiles has the same law with regard to this matter: it involves only the impurity of carrying, like an animal carcass, and no more.

And

this is how the Mishna teaches: A slaughter

Мишна:

such as this,

that of an ordinary idolater,

imparts impurity through carrying.

And there is another slaughter

such as this

of an idolater, even though

it

is more severe than it in every respect, nevertheless

it is like this!

That is,

it imparts impurity through carrying and does not impart impurity through a tent

like it.

And which

is it?

This is an idolatrous offering.

For it was slaughtered for the sake of idolatry.

And the Mishna is

not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira,

who holds that an idolatrous offering imparts impurity through a tent.

For it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that an idolatrous offering imparts impurity through a tent? As it is stated [Psalms 106]

[Псалмы 106]

“They joined themselves to Baal Peor and ate the sacrifices of the dead,”

that is, the sacrifices of idolatry. And we expound:

Just as a dead body imparts impurity through a tent,

so too the sacrifices of the dead, which are

idolatrous offerings,

impart impurity through a tent.

Mishna:

One who slaughters at night,

and likewise a blind person who slaughtered—

his slaughter is valid.

Gemara:

The Gemara proves: Since the Mishna teaches

“one who slaughters

at night,” and it does not teach, “one may slaughter at night,” it follows that

after the fact, yes,

the slaughter is valid only after the fact, but

at the outset, no

one should slaughter at night, lest he fail to slaughter the majority of the identifying organs and fail to notice this because of the darkness.

And he raises a contradiction

to this from that which was taught:

One may always slaughter, whether during the day or at night.

Whether at the top of a roof,

and he need not fear that people will suspect him of slaughtering for the heavenly host. And likewise he is permitted to collect the blood of the slaughter into a vessel, even though ordinarily it is forbidden to do so lest they suspect him of wishing to cast the blood in the vessel to an idol; but at the top of a roof it is permitted, since it is apparent that he does so only so that the roof will not become soiled.

Whether at the top of a ship,

even though he slaughters into the sea, which involves a prohibition lest they suspect him of slaughtering for the minister of the sea. But on a ship it is permitted, since everyone knows that he does so in order not to soil the ship.

It is therefore explained in the beraita, which teaches “one may always slaughter,” that it is permitted even at the outset to slaughter at night; and this is difficult for the Mishna?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

The beraita, which teaches that it is permitted even at the outset, is speaking

when there is a torch

shining

opposite him

at the time of slaughter; whereas the Mishna is speaking of one who slaughters in darkness, and therefore it is forbidden at the outset.

Rav Ashi said: It is also precise

from the Mishna and the beraita that each one is speaking of a different circumstance,

for there it teaches

in the beraita, “whether during the day or at night,” indicating that the night is

analogous to the day,

that is, the night is like the day, when there was also light from the lamp shining before him;

but here,

in the Mishna, it teaches, “and likewise a blind person,” indicating that the night is

analogous to a blind person;

just as a blind person cannot see at all, so too the “night” mentioned here refers to a situation in which he cannot see, that is, he was in darkness.

Learn from it

that this is indeed so, in accordance with the words of Rav Pappa.