Chullin 5b — the Talmud in English

And we derive by exclusion from that which is written

“from the people of the land”

[which implies: but not all the people of the land!] —

to exclude an apostate.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

From here you learn to exclude an apostate: from that which is written regarding a sin-offering,

“which one shall not do unintentionally”

“and he bears guilt,”

and adjacent to it is written, “or it becomes known to him that he sinned, and he shall bring his guilt-offering,” implying that only

one who would turn back through knowledge,

namely, when it becomes known to him now that he sinned, and had he known at the time of committing the sin that there was a transgression in the matter, he would have refrained from sinning,

brings an offering

a sin-offering

for his unintentional act.

But if he

would not turn back through knowledge,

rather, it is to be assumed that even had he known of the prohibition he would have sinned—for example, an apostate—

he does not bring an offering for his unintentional act.

Therefore, if he ate forbidden fat thinking that it was ordinary fat, and afterward it became known to him that he had eaten forbidden fat, and he wishes to bring a sin-offering for his unintentional eating, they do not accept it from him, because even if he had known at the time of eating that the piece he ate was forbidden fat and not ordinary fat, he would not have refrained from eating it.

And we say:

What is the difference between them

, between the first tanna, who derives it from the exclusion of “from the people of the land,” and Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei in the name of Rabbi Shimon? For according to both of them an apostate does not bring a sin-offering.

And Rav Hamnuna said: An apostate to eating forbidden fat,

who acted unintentionally regarding eating blood, and with respect to eating blood he is not an apostate,

and brought an offering

a sin-offering

for

eating

the blood

—that is the difference between them.

According to the first tanna, who expounds “from the people of the land”—but not all the people of the land—to exclude an apostate, all apostates were excluded; and even one who is an apostate regarding eating forbidden fat cannot bring an offering for eating blood, with respect to which he is not an apostate. But according to Rabbi Shimon, only an apostate regarding that same transgression was excluded, with respect to which he is not “one who would turn back through knowledge.” But an apostate regarding eating forbidden fat who ate blood unintentionally, and it became known to him regarding the eating of blood, is one who would turn back through knowledge and is obligated to bring a sin-offering.

And it is demonstrated from this beraita that the exclusion of an apostate is either from the exclusion of “from the people of the land” or from the teaching of “one who would turn back through knowledge.” But this is difficult from that which we derived in the earlier beraita: to exclude an apostate from the exposition “from you, but not all of you”—to exclude an apostate!?

And we answer:

One

verse is necessary

for a sin-offering, and one

is necessary

for a burnt-offering. And both are necessary.

.

Had it been taught

that an apostate was excluded from a

sin-offering,

I would have said that he was excluded only from it

because it comes for atonement,

and this apostate, who intends to return and repeat his sin even intentionally, is not fit for atonement.

But

regarding an offering of

a burnt-offering,

which is an offering of

a gift, I would say: accept it from him.

And had it been taught

regarding an offering of

a burnt-offering,

I would have said that an offering of a burnt-offering is not accepted from an apostate

because he is not one subject to obligation, but

an offering of a

sin-offering, which is an obligation, I would say: accept it from him,

so that the sinner should not profit. Therefore,

it is necessary

to teach us concerning both a burnt-offering and a sin-offering that an apostate cannot bring them.

And now we consider that which we say: “from the animal,” to include human beings who are sinners, who resemble an animal.

And

when

everywhere that “animal” is written

is an expression of

inferiority?

But it is written, “You save man and animal, O Lord,” and Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav

: that which is written, “man and animal”—

these are human beings who are clever in understanding

like the first man,

and make themselves

humble in spirit, who do not become haughty,

like an animal,

and because of this merit the Lord saves them. And it is demonstrated oppositely, that the expression “animal” indicates superiority!?

And we answer:

There it is written, “man and animal,”

therefore we expound it as indicating superiority. But

here, “animal” is written by itself.

Therefore we expound it as indicating inferiority.

And we refute:

And

when

everywhere that “man and animal” is written, does it indicate superiority?

But it is written, “And I will sow the House of Israel

—the seed of man and the seed of animal,”

and we expound that “the seed of animal” refers to an ignorant person, who has neither read nor learned nor served Torah scholars!?

And we answer:

There the verse divided them,

for it is written

“the seed of man” separately and “the seed of animal” separately,

and therefore we expound it as indicating inferiority; only where “man and animal” are written together do we expound it as indicating superiority. [

Mnemonic: Nimlaf ]

Rav Hanan said in the name of Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi, who said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi in the name of bar Kappara: Rabban Gamliel

the son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who was among the last of the tannaim,

and his court

—took a vote concerning the slaughter of a Samaritan,

after our Mishna was taught, in which it is written “everyone slaughters,” including a Samaritan,

and prohibited it.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi: Perhaps Rabbi did not hear

[namely, Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi, who heard from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi in the name of bar Kappara] that they took a vote to prohibit the slaughter of a Samaritan

only when no Israelite is standing over him,

but when an Israelite is standing over him, his slaughter is valid. If so, this is also the law of our Mishna, and it emerges that they did not take a vote to prohibit what our Mishna permitted; rather, they held like our Mishna, that the slaughter of a Samaritan is permitted when an Israelite is standing over him, and they prohibited it only when he is not standing over him.

He said to him

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi to Rabbi Zeira:

This one from among the Torah scholars

[he said this about Rabbi Zeira]

is like people who have not learned a teaching!

And regarding

when no Israelite is standing over him

the Samaritan,

does it need to be stated

that it is prohibited to eat from his slaughter? For it is obvious to us that the Samaritans do not have the law of “placing a stumbling block before the blind,” and if the slaughter is not performed properly they will cause us to eat an unslaughtered carcass. For this, it was not necessary to teach us that they prohibited the slaughter of a Samaritan; rather, necessarily, they took a vote to prohibit it even when an Israelite is standing over him.

And the Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Zeira

accept it from him

, from Rabbi Yaakov, that Rabban Gamliel and his court prohibited the slaughter of a Samaritan even when an Israelite is standing over him,

or did he not accept it from him?

Come and hear: For Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Asi: I saw Rabbi Yohanan eating from the slaughter of a Samaritan

[when an Israelite was standing over him, or he cut meat and gave it to him, and the Samaritan ate it].

And Rabbi Asi

himself

ate from the slaughter of a Samaritan.

And Rabbi Zeira pondered

in his heart: how did Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Asi eat from the slaughter of a Samaritan? Did

they not hear

that which we say, that Rabban Gamliel and his court took a vote concerning the slaughter of a Samaritan and prohibited it?

For if they had heard it, they would have accepted it

and would not have eaten from his slaughter.

Or perhaps

indeed

they heard it

—but did not accept it!?

Afterward, he resolved

Rabbi Zeira

for himself

the matter about which he had wondered in his heart.

It is reasonable that they heard it—

but did not accept it.

For if it enters your mind that they did not hear it,

and therefore they ate from the slaughter of the Samaritan,

and if they had heard it

—they would have accepted it, how could the matter happen

—how did such a stumbling block happen to these righteous men—

to eat a prohibited thing!?

For

now, the animals of righteous people,

such as the donkey of Pinḥas ben Yair,

the Holy One, blessed be He, does not bring a mishap through them,

so that the animal should eat something prohibited,

the righteous themselves, all the more so

should such a mishap not occur to them!?