Chullin 3a — the Talmud in English

And from here we learned that

a sword

that touches a corpse

is

impure with a degree of impurity

like a corpse

itself, for all metal vessels that touch corpse impurity capable of rendering vessels impure [and this is, for example, the father of the fathers of impurity and the father of impurity, which are two degrees of impurity that render vessels impure, but impurity that is at the level of “first degree of impurity” or lower does not render vessels impure] receive the degree of impurity of the thing that renders them impure. That is to say, if metal vessels touched a corpse, they are impure at the level of the father of the fathers of impurity, and if they touched the father of impurity [as, for example, a person who touched a corpse], they become a father of impurity.

And if so, this is difficult: how can the impure person slaughter an offering? For since that impure person, who touched a corpse and came to slaughter the offering,

is a father of impurity—

he will render the knife impure

by touching it, and the knife will be impure like him, with the impurity of a father of impurity,

and the knife will go

at the time of slaughtering

and render the meat impure?!

Rather,

necessarily, this is not speaking of a person who became impure with corpse impurity; rather, it is speaking

that he became impure with

impurity of a

creeping creature,

and then he becomes a first degree of impurity, and does not render vessels impure.

And if you wish, say: actually

it is speaking

that he became impure through a corpse, and for example

he did not slaughter with a metal knife; rather, it is speaking

that he examined a reed splinter

made of wood, which has no receptacle, and we hold that simple wooden vessels do not receive impurity,

and slaughtered with it!

For it was taught in a beraita: With all [instruments] one may slaughter: whether with a stone

of stone,

whether with glass, whether with a reed splinter

made of wood.

Abaye said: This is what it teaches: All may slaughter,

and “all” comes to include

even a Kuti!

When are these words said? When an Israelite stands over him.

But

if the Israelite did not stand over him throughout the entire time of the slaughter, but the Israelite was

going out and coming in, he may not slaughter

the Kuti.

And if he slaughtered, [the Israelite] cuts

the Israelite

an olive-sized piece of meat

from the animal that the Kuti slaughtered,

and gives it to him

the Kuti to eat.

If

he ate it

the Kuti,

it is permitted

for the Israelite

to eat from his slaughtering.

For the Kuti is not suspected of eating unslaughtered carcasses and torn animals. And since he ate it, it is proven that he slaughtered properly. But if

he did not eat it

the Kuti himself, one cannot rely on the fact that he feeds it to an Israelite as proof that he slaughtered properly, despite the fact that it is forbidden to feed a forbidden thing, by virtue of the prohibition “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind,” because the Kutim interpret the “stumbling block” mentioned in the verse as a stumbling block of a stone and the like, and not a stumbling block involving a prohibition. Therefore, it is not proven from the fact that they give an Israelite meat from the slaughtered animal that they indeed slaughtered it according to its law, and

it is forbidden to eat from his slaughtering.

Except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, for even

if they slaughtered,

after the fact also not

may one eat from their slaughtering, because

perhaps they will pause [

they paused],

perhaps they will press, and perhaps they will bury the knife.

And the Gemara asks: According to Abaye, the statement that it teaches

“and all of them who slaughtered”

their slaughtering is valid,

with regard to what

does it refer?

If you say

that it refers

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

behold,

it refers to the preceding statement,

for this is the continuation of the matter, and if so,

“and if they slaughtered,”

with a connecting vav,

it should have been necessary for him

to write, and why did he state “and all of them who slaughtered”?

Rather,

“and all of them who slaughtered” refers

to the Kuti,

who is included at the beginning of the Mishna in “All may slaughter.”

And we are greatly astonished:

You said that when an Israelite stands over him

the Kuti

he slaughters even initially,

and if so, how did you say that the statement taught at the end, that when others see them their slaughtering is valid after the fact, refers to the Kuti? And we conclude:

This is difficult

for Abaye’s explanation!

Rava said,

and he was astonished at Abaye:

And

when a Kuti slaughters and an Israelite

goes out and comes in, initially he may not

slaughter, may the Kuti?

But we learned in the Mishna: One who leaves a gentile in his shop,

and there is wine in that shop,

and an Israelite goes out and comes in

to the shop—

it is permitted

that wine in the shop, and it is not forbidden out of concern lest the gentile poured the wine as a libation for idolatry.

And it is proven that the fact that an Israelite goes out and comes in removes all the concerns, and it is permitted initially.

And we reject this:

There

in the law of wine,

does it teach

that initially

the Israelite leaves

the gentile to remain in the shop with the wine? Behold,

“one who leaves

a gentile in his shop”

it teaches,

which is the language of

after the fact!

Rather, from here

there is a refutation to be made:

The guardian

of the wine against contact by a gentile

need not sit and guard

the wine continuously;

rather, even though he goes out and comes in,

behold, the wine is

permitted?!

Rather, Rava said: This is what it teaches: All may slaughter, and even a Kuti.

When are these words said? When an Israelite goes out and comes in. But

if

the Israelite came

after the slaughter

and found

the Kuti

that

had already

slaughtered, [the Israelite] cuts

the Israelite

an olive-sized piece of meat and gives it to him

the Kuti to eat.

He ate it

the Kuti, an olive-sized piece of meat,

it is permitted

for the Israelite

to eat from his slaughtering.

But if

he did not eat it, it is forbidden

for the Israelite

to eat from his slaughtering.

And the continuation of the Mishna is:

Except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, for even

if they slaughtered,

after the fact also not

do we validate their slaughtering, because of the concern

perhaps they will pause, perhaps they will press, and perhaps they will bury the knife.

And the Gemara asks according to Rava’s establishment:

“And all of them who slaughtered,”

which is taught at the end, that their slaughtering is valid—

with regard to what

does it refer?

If you say [it refers] to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor,

behold,

it refers to the preceding statement,

and if so,

“and if they slaughtered” it should have been necessary for him

to write.

Rather, it refers to the Kuti,

to say that his slaughtering is valid after the fact; but you cannot say this, because

you said

that

even

if the Israelite was not present throughout the entire time of the Kuti’s slaughtering, but was merely

going out and coming in—

he slaughters

the Kuti

initially?!

And we conclude:

This is difficult

according to Rava’s establishment.

Rav Ashi said: This is what it teaches: All may slaughter, and even an Israelite who is an apostate!

And we explain:

An apostate with regard to what?

An apostate

to eat unslaughtered carcasses out of appetite,

for if he does not find slaughtered meat, he eats the meat of an unslaughtered carcass.

And in accordance with [the statement of] Rava, for Rava said: An Israelite

who is

an apostate,

with regard to this matter, that he

eats unslaughtered carcasses out of appetite,

who comes to slaughter,