Chullin 41b — the Talmud in English

so that

he should not ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

imitate the Sadducees 446 ,

for this practice is one of their customs, to slaughter into pits, and one who does so strengthens their hands.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna:

one may not slaughter into the

seas ... but he may slaughter into a basin of water.

And we raise an objection:

What is different about slaughtering into seas, that one may not

slaughter, because

they will say: he is slaughtering for the deity of the sea,

and there is suspicion in this case; if so,

into a basin of water also

there is suspicion, for

they will say: he is slaughtering for a reflection

[of his face] that is visible in the water

!

Rava said:

In truth, one may not slaughter into a basin with clear water, but

they taught [the ruling] with turbid water

in which the image is not discernible.

We learned in our Mishna:

one may not slaughter into a pit

at all, but he may make a pit inside his house so that the blood will enter it.

And we consider: How is it permitted to make a pit inside his house?

But you said

at the beginning that

one may not slaughter into a pit at all!

Abaye said: The beginning is referring to a pit in the marketplace

into which one may not slaughter because of the customs of the sects, but in a house there is no prohibition against slaughtering into a pit at all.

Rava said to him: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: “And in the marketplace he may not do so,” by inference, the beginning is not dealing with the marketplace

but with the house!

Rather, Rava said: This is what it is saying: One may not slaughter

in such a manner that the blood will pour directly

i

nto

a pit at all

even in a house, because this is the practice of the sects.

And one who wishes to clean

[his courtyard]

his courtyard

so that it will not be soiled with blood,

how does he do it? He makes a place

to which the blood will pour

outside the pit, and slaughters, and the blood trickles and descends

from the groove

into the pit; but in the marketplace he may not do so, so that he should not imitate the Sadducees

even though he thereby departs somewhat from their practice, for he does not need to clean the marketplace .

It was taught in accordance with Rava: If one was traveling on a ship, and he has no place on the ship in which to slaughter, he extends his hand outside the ship and slaughters, and the blood trickles and descends onto the sides of the ship,

in a manner similar to what we learned in our Mishna, that it is permitted to slaughter upon vessels and the blood pours from them into the sea.

And he may not slaughter into a pit at all. And one who wishes to clean his courtyard, how does he do it? He makes a place outside the pit and slaughters, and the blood trickles and descends into the pit; but in the marketplace he may not do so, because it is stated: “And in their statutes you shall not walk” [Leviticus 18:3].

And if he did so, an examination must be made after him

lest he be a sect who worships idolatry, and if they find that he is a sect, they should distance themselves from his wine .

Mishna:

This Mishna deals with one who slaughters a non-sacred animal outside the Temple courtyard and says that he is slaughtering it for the sake of a sacrifice . This statement is merely foolish talk, and the animal should be permitted like any non-sacred animal. Nevertheless, the Sages invalidated this slaughtering because of appearance to the eye of his neighbors who see him slaughtering it for the sake of a sacrifice and think that he has now also consecrated the animal for this sacrifice, and that he is slaughtering consecrated animals and eating them outside . This decree was stated only with regard to one who slaughters for the sake of a sacrifice that a person can consecrate; but when one slaughters for the sake of an obligatory sacrifice that he cannot consecrate if he is not obligated to bring it, there is no concern because of appearance to the eye, since his neighbors know that his words are foolish talk, and the animal is permitted.

One who slaughters

non-sacred animals

for the sake of a burnt-offering

or

for the sake of sacrifices

[peace-offerings] or

for the sake of a provisional guilt-offering

or

for the sake of a Paschal offering

or

for the sake of a thanksgiving-offering —

his slaughtering is invalid.

And Rabbi Shimon declares it fit

because he is not concerned with appearance to the eye .

If there were

two holding a knife

one

and slaughtering, one

slaughtered

for the sake of one of all these, and one

performed an ordinary slaughtering, which is

for the sake of a valid matter—

his slaughtering is invalid 457 .

One who slaughters for the sake of a sin-offering, for the sake of a definite guilt-offering

[all guilt-offerings brought for a definite sin, unlike the provisional guilt-offering brought for uncertainty, which do not involve appearance to the eye, since it is impossible to consecrate them without the sin that obligates them, or one who slaughtered]

for the sake of a firstborn

or

for the sake of a tithe

which do not involve appearance to the eye, since his neighbors who see him know that these animals are neither a firstborn nor a tithe, or one who slaughtered

for the sake of an exchange

when he has no consecrated animal with which he could make an exchange—

his slaughtering is valid.

This is the rule: Every matter that can be vowed or volunteered, one who slaughters for its sake—

it is prohibited; and that which cannot be vowed or volunteered, one who slaughters for its sake—

it is valid.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna:

one who slaughters for the sake of a burnt-offering,

for the sake of sacrifices, for the sake of a provisional guilt-offering ... his slaughtering is invalid.

And we raise an objection:

Is a provisional guilt-offering something that can be vowed or volunteered?

But it is an obligatory sacrifice brought for a sin, like all guilt-offerings!

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Whose opinion is this? It is Rabbi Eliezer’s, who says: A person may volunteer a provisional guilt-offering every day 458 ,

since we find that the Torah validated a provisional guilt-offering to be offered and eaten for an uncertain sin, and we do not say that if he did not sin he brought non-sacred property into the Temple courtyard; from this one can learn that even one whose heart troubles him, lest he sinned, may bring a provisional guilt-offering, although the obligation applies only in a case of uncertainty that arose because a person ate one piece out of two pieces, one of which was forbidden fat, and it is unknown whether he ate forbidden fat or permitted fat.

We learned in our Mishna: One who slaughters ... for the sake of a Paschal offering ... his slaughtering is invalid.

And we raise an objection:

Is a Paschal offering something that can be volunteered and vowed?

But

a fixed time is set for it

[a time is fixed for it] at which one is obligated to offer it, and it is impossible to offer it at another time!

Rabbi Hoshaya said: A Paschal offering is different

from all obligatory sacrifices, which cannot be consecrated before the obligation takes effect, but a Paschal offering—

since its designation

as a sacrifice can take place

throughout the entire year,

there is room to suspect that the slaughterer consecrated the animal as a Paschal offering .

Rabbi Yannai said: They taught

in our Mishna that we are concerned with appearance to the eye only with regard to

unblemished animals,

but with regard to

blemished animals

there is no concern, since

it is known

to those who see that consecration cannot take effect upon them.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even

with

blemished animals also

there is concern because of appearance to the eye, since

sometimes something covers the blemish and it is not known

[sometimes the blemish is covered by wool or mud and the blemish is not known], and the Sages did not distinguish, but invalidated the slaughtering even when the blemish is visible .

We learned in our Mishna:

One who slaughters for the sake of a sin-offering ...

his slaughtering is valid.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught this only

with regard to one

who is not obligated to bring a sin-offering; but

if it became known that he committed a transgression for which he is

obligated

to bring

a sin-offering—

the animal is prohibited, since

perhaps he is doing it for the sake of his sin-offering,

but when it is not known that he is obligated to bring a sin-offering, there is no concern that they will say that perhaps he is obligated to bring a sin-offering and the matter is not known to others, because one who is obligated to bring a sin-offering is accustomed to tell this to his neighbors, so that he will be ashamed and it will atone for him .

And we raise an objection:

But he did not say, “for the sake of my sin,”

but rather “for the sake of a sin-offering,” and his words do not mean that this sin-offering is for the obligation to bring a sin-offering that he already incurred, but that he is now volunteering a sin-offering, and this is impossible!

Rabbi Abbahu said:

In truth, Rabbi Yoḥanan prohibited it only

when he says, “for the sake of my sin.”

And if it is not known that he is obligated to bring a sin-offering, even if he says, “for the sake of my sin,” people do not believe him that he is obligated to bring a sin-offering.

We learned in our Mishna: One who slaughters ...

for the sake of an exchange—

his slaughtering is valid.

Rabbi Elazar said: They taught this only when he has no sacrifice in his house; but

if it became known that

he has a sacrifice in his house

the animal is prohibited, since

perhaps he made an exchange for it

[perhaps he exchanged it for that sacrifice], and although the sacrifice is not in his presence, he can make an exchange for it. But if we do not know that he has a sacrifice in his house, there is no concern that they will say that perhaps he has one and we do not know this, because it is customary to notify and warn about consecrated property so that people will not come to misuse it .

And we raise an objection:

But he did not say, “for the sake of the exchange of my sacrifice,”

but rather “for the sake of an exchange,” and his words do not mean that this is to be the exchange of a particular sacrifice, but that he is making an exchange under the designation of a sin-offering or a burnt-offering, and this is impossible!

Rabbi Abbahu said:

Rabbi Elazar prohibited it only

when he says, “for the sake of the exchange of my sacrifice.”

And if it is not known that he has a sacrifice in his house, even if he says, “for the sake of the exchange of my sacrifice,” people do not believe him.

We learned in our Mishna:

This is the rule:

Every matter that can be volunteered and vowed, one who slaughters for its sake is prohibited, and that which cannot be volunteered and vowed, one who slaughters for its sake is valid.

And we consider:

What does it bring in

[what does the rule teach] that we did not know from the details?

And we answer: “Can be vowed and volunteered” is written in the Mishna

to bring in

one who slaughters for the sake of

the burnt-offering of a nazirite

which can be consecrated only if he vowed nazirite status,

for you might say

[there would be room to say] that we should not prohibit the animal, because

he did not

know that he

vowed

nazirite status, and certainly they will say that his words are foolish talk; it teaches us the Mishna that people suspect and say:

Perhaps he vowed

the ordinary nazirite vow, which is thirty days,

in private

and the matter was not known to his neighbors, and therefore even if in truth he did not vow nazirite status, the animal is prohibited .

And that which cannot be vowed or volunteered

is written in the Mishna

to bring in

one who slaughters for the sake of

the burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth

for it is known to his neighbors that he is not obligated to bring this sacrifice.

Rabbi Elazar said

They taught this only when he has no wife; but if he has a wife

when he slaughters for the sake of the burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth, it is prohibited, since

perhaps he is doing it for her sake

for the sake of his wife who gave birth

.

And we raise an objection:

But he did not say, “for the sake of my wife’s burnt-offering”!

Rabbi Abbahu said:

Rabbi Elazar is speaking

when he says, “for the sake of my wife’s burnt-offering.”

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious,

for did Rabbi Elazar not already teach us this novelty when he said that if he has a sacrifice in his house and says, “for the sake of the exchange of my sacrifice,” it is prohibited!