Chullin 2b — the Talmud in English

However

if

he said, “It is incumbent upon me”

a sacrifice [or charity], since there is concern lest he be negligent and not fulfill his vow,

not

did Rabbi Yehuda say that one vows ab initio.

And if so, this is difficult for Rav Ashi, who said: wherever it is taught “all,” the intention is that they do so ab initio. For in Arakhin and Nedarim, he accepts upon himself a monetary obligation, and he does not vow a specific object to the Temple; and if so, everyone agrees that this should not be done ab initio, and nevertheless it is taught: “All make valuations and vow”!? But Rav Ashi refuted this from the opposite direction:

And

wherever it is taught

“all,” is it not

a

law ab initio?

Is it not possible that the tanna should employ this expression for a law that is ab initio!?

Rather,

that which we learned in tractate Arakhin [3b]:

“All”

[to include a minor]

are obligated in a sukka. All

[to include a minor]

are obligated in ritual fringes —

does

likewise

the tanna intend to say

that it is not ab initio!?

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: “All

are obligated”—

I did not say

that this is an expression indicating after the fact, for when the tanna says “are obligated,” it is evident that it is a law ab initio, that they are obligated to perform it.

Rav Ashi said to him:

Rather, from now,

that which is taught in tractate Menahot [93a]:

“All”

[even heirs]

place their hands

on the sacrifice,

both men and women.

Does

likewise

the tanna say

that it is not ab initio

?

But it is written, “And he shall place his hand—

and it will be accepted”!?

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to him:

Yes!

Indeed

there is

there are places where the tanna employed the expression

“all”

that is

ab initio, and there is

and there are places where the tanna employed the expression

“all”

that is

after the fact!

Rather, this is what is difficult to me concerning your words:

“All”

that is taught

here

in the Mishna,

from where

is it known that the expression

is one of ab initio,

so that

it should be difficult for you

from the beginning of the tanna’s words to the end of his words?

Perhaps

here “all” is an expression of

after the fact, and nothing should be difficult for you

!?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi:

I—

it is from what the tanna wrote,

“Their slaughter is valid,”

that it

is difficult for me.

For

since it teaches, “Their slaughter is valid,”

which is an expression of

after the fact—

it follows

that you learn from this

that

that which it teaches at the beginning,

“all

slaughter,”

is ab initio, for if

“all slaughter” is also an expression of

after the fact,

it would be difficult for you—

why do I need two “after the fact” statements!?

And therefore it is difficult for me from the first clause, which implies that they slaughter ab initio, to the final clause, which implies that only after the fact is their slaughter valid.

Rabba bar Ulla said: This is how it teaches

the ab initio and after-the-fact rulings in the Mishna:

“All slaughter”

ab initio, to say that

even

a

ritually impure

person, who is able to slaughter

non-sacred animals.

And we wonder:

A ritually impure

person who is able to slaughter

non-sacred animals—

what is the point of stating this?

What does it teach us that he is able to slaughter, when Israel was not warned not to eat ritually impure non-sacred meat?

And we explain: The novelty is that it is permitted for a ritually impure person to slaughter even

non-sacred animals prepared with the purity of sacrificial food,

for there are people who accept upon themselves to conduct themselves with purity when eating non-sacred food, as when eating sacrificial food, so that if they eat sacrificial food they will be expert in guarding it.

And the tanna holds

of the Mishna that

non-sacred animals prepared with the purity of sacrificial food—

are considered like sacrificial food,

so that one who accepted upon himself to eat non-sacred food with the purity of sacrificial food is obligated to guard it from impurity as though it were actual sacrificial food; and nevertheless, a ritually impure person may slaughter ab initio, with a long knife, non-sacred animals prepared with the purity of sacrificial food, and we are not concerned lest he touch the animal and render it impure.

How does he do so,

to slaughter without rendering it impure?

He brings a long knife and slaughters with it, so that he does not touch the flesh.

Up to here is the explanation of the first clause of the Mishna, that all slaughter ab initio.

As for that which it teaches, “And if they slaughtered, their slaughter is valid,” implying after the fact, the intention of the Mishna is to say that

with consecrated animals,

that is, sacrifices,

he should not slaughter

the ritually impure person even with a long knife, because

perhaps he will touch the flesh,

and he is warned by Torah law to guard the sacrificial food so that it not become impure; and therefore the Sages decreed that he should not slaughter even with a long knife, in order to distance a person from transgression.

And if the ritually impure person slaughtered

and

says: “It is certain to me that I did not touch”

and did not render the flesh impure—

his slaughter,

after the fact,

is valid.

Except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, for even with ordinary non-sacred animals

[who did not accept purity upon themselves], if they slaughtered,

even after the fact, we do not

validate their slaughter.

For one does not entrust a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor to slaughter, even when others are watching them.

Lest they linger

during the slaughter and not perform it as one uninterrupted act,

or

lest they press,

that is, press down on the knife forcefully until the identifying organs are cut, without drawing and bringing the knife,

and lest they conceal the knife,

that is, slaughter by thrusting the knife beneath the skin or between the two identifying organs.

And since they are likely to ruin [the slaughter], to the extent that one does not entrust them to slaughter even when others watch the slaughter, if they slaughtered after the fact, their slaughter is invalid because of these concerns.

We learned in the final clause of the Mishna:

“And all of them who slaughtered,”

when others watch them—their slaughter is valid.

And the Gemara asks:

Concerning whom

does this statement, “And all of them who slaughtered,”

if you say

does it refer

to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor,

and because

it refers to them,

since it is a continuation of the law of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, written in the Mishna previously—if so, this is difficult: why does it teach, “And all of them who slaughtered, their slaughter is valid,” for this expression includes additional slaughterers besides a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor? And since it refers to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, it should have written

“And if they slaughtered”

instead.

Rather, it refers to a ritually impure person concerning non-sacred animals,

that if ritually impure people slaughtered, their slaughter is valid after the fact.

And we refute this: A ritually impure person concerning non-sacred animals—

did you not say: He may slaughter even ab initio?!

Rather,

it refers

to a ritually impure person concerning consecrated animals,

for ab initio he should not slaughter, but if he slaughtered and others watched him so that he did not touch the flesh, his slaughter is valid.

And we wonder: If the Mishna is speaking of a ritually impure person concerning consecrated animals, why do we need “when others watch them”?

If he is certain

when the slaughterer claims that he did not render them impure,

is that not sufficient?!

And we answer: The Mishna is speaking where

he is not present

the slaughterer

before us so that we can ask him.

And the Gemara asks: Is it the case that

this

law of a

ritually impure

person—he should not slaughter

concerning consecrated animals

ab initio, but if he slaughtered, his slaughter is valid—is it

from

the Mishna

here that it emerges

for us? That is, did Rabbi state this law anonymously in our Mishna? But

from

the Mishna

there,

in tractate Zevahim,

this law emerges

for us!?

For we learned: “All those disqualified

for the Temple service

who slaughtered

a sacrifice—

their slaughter is valid,

because

slaughter is valid

in sacrificial service even

by non-priests, by women, by slaves, and by ritually impure people

[although they are disqualified for other services],

and even

if those disqualified slaughtered

sacrifices that are

most sacred sacrifices

—their slaughter is valid!

Provided that the ritually impure people do not touch the flesh,

that they take care not to render it impure and disqualify it!

And it is proven that slaughter by ritually impure people concerning consecrated animals is not ab initio, for it teaches, “Their slaughter is valid,” which is an expression of after the fact!?

And we answer:

Here,

Rabbi taught the

principal

law, since this chapter deals with the laws of slaughter, whereas

there

Rabbi taught this law

because he taught the other disqualified people,

and therefore

he also taught the ritually impure person concerning consecrated animals.

And if you wish, say

that you should explain it oppositely:

there,

in tractate Zevahim, Rabbi stated anonymously the

principal

law, since it is dealing with sacrificial service, whereas

here, because he taught

the law of

a ritually impure person concerning

the slaughter of

non-sacred animals, he also taught the ritually impure person concerning consecrated animals!

And furthermore, we consider this:

This ritually impure person—

with what did he become impure?

If you say that he became impure through a corpse,

and thereby became impure at the level of a “primary source of impurity” [for the corpse itself is at the level of the father of the fathers of impurity], then, if he touches the knife, he renders it impure with an impurity as severe as his own, for “everything that touches in the open field

a slain person of the sword

or a corpse,”

the Merciful One said,