Chullin 86a (פו.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer: Rav Dimi did not mean that Rabbi specifically told him, “Go and perform terifa,” and it is indeed possible that Rabbi said, “Go and perform neḥira,” since one is also exempt from covering the blood in the case of neḥira. Rather,

Rav Dimi was stating the “it is not necessary” formulation

of his teaching.

It is not necessary to say “Go and perform neḥira,”

in which case, according to Rabbi, one is exempt from covering the blood because

it is not shechita at all; but with regard to “Go and perform terifa,”

which is considered shechita, except that it is not fit to permit consumption,

one might say

that Rabbi concedes that even though it is

an unfit shechita, it is still called shechita, and one would be required to cover the blood. This teaches us

that even with regard to the shechita of a tereifa, Rabbi maintains that one is exempt from covering the blood,

in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba,

who said above that Rabbi found Rabbi Shimon’s position concerning covering the blood to be compelling.

And we raise a difficulty:

But according to the one who says that Rabbi told him, “Go and perform neḥira,” what is the reason that he did not say, “Go and perform terifa”?

And if you say

that he maintains that Rabbi could not have told him, “Go and perform terifa,” because

he holds

that Rabbi maintains

that an unfit shechita is still called shechita,

and therefore, had he rendered the animal a tereifa, he would not have been exempt from covering the blood,

but Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi found Rabbi Shimon’s position concerning covering the blood to be compelling,

according to which one who slaughters a tereifa is exempt from covering the blood,

and he taught it in the language of the Sages?

And we answer:

He was stating the “it is not necessary” formulation:

It is not necessary to say “Go and perform terifa,”

as Rabbi maintains that one is exempt from covering the blood because

an unfit shechita is not called shechita; but with regard to “Go and perform neḥira,” one might say

that Rabbi maintains

“There is no Torah requirement of shechita for a bird, and its neḥira is its shechita”

¹, and one would therefore be required to cover the blood. This teaches us

that Rabbi exempts one from covering the blood even in the case of neḥira, because Rabbi maintains that there is a Torah requirement of shechita for a bird, as he expounds from

“as I commanded you.”

And we raise a difficulty:

Did Rabbi Ḥiyya happen to suffer a calamity in his flax?

Rabbi Hiyya’s flax?

For Ravin bar Abba said—and some say that Rabbi Avin bar Sheva said: From the time that the exiles returned,

the Babylonian Sages, to Eretz Yisrael [in the generations of the Sages of the Talmud,

the shooting stars ceased,

a star that passes through the heavens like an arrow from place to place and is a sign of curse,

and the earthquakes,

tremors of the earth,

and the harsh winds,

that blow furiously,

and the thunder. Their wine did not sour, and their flax was not stricken,

the flax of the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael [who had previously suffered all these afflictions because of their sins],

and the Sages cast their eyes upon Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons

who had come from the exile, and in their merit the calamities ceased! If so, how could Rabbi Ḥiyya’s flax have been stricken?

And we answer:

Their merit was effective

for Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons

for the world at large,

but

not for themselves,

since their reward is reserved for them in the World-to-Come .

In accordance with the statement of Rav Yehuda, who said that Rav said: Every single day

in the generation of Rabbi Ḥanina,

a Divine voice emerges and says: The entire world

is sustained on account of Ḥanina, My son!

That is, by his merit.

But Ḥanina, My son, has enough with a kav of carobs from one Shabbat eve to the next Shabbat eve!

He himself made his living with difficulty and in great austerity .

Mishna:

If a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor slaughtered, and others observe them

slaughtering in accordance with halakha—

he is obligated

everyone who sees the blood

to cover

it, since the shechita of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is valid when it is performed correctly.

But if they slaughtered

among themselves—

he is exempt from covering the blood!

For it is certain that they slaughtered improperly, and there is no obligation to cover the blood of an invalid shechita.

And likewise

with regard to the prohibition of

“an animal and its offspring,” if they slaughtered

the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor slaughtered the mother or the offspring first,

and others observe them, it is prohibited to slaughter after them

the mother or the offspring.

But if they slaughtered

among themselves—

Rabbi Meir permits slaughtering after them,

as stated above, since the shechita of a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor is certainly invalid, and it is as though the first animal had not been slaughtered; consequently, it is permitted to slaughter the second.

But the Sages prohibit

slaughtering after them, because one must be concerned that perhaps the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor slaughtered properly.

And they concede

the Sages

that if one slaughtered

after them,

he does not receive forty lashes

he is not lashed for violating the prohibition of “an animal and its offspring,” since this is only a case of uncertainty as to whether he violated that prohibition.

Gemara:

And we raise a difficulty:

But the Sages,

who are concerned that perhaps the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor slaughtered properly,

what is different in the first clause, in which they do not disagree

and require that the blood of their slaughter be covered as a matter of uncertainty,

and what is different in the latter clause, in which they do disagree

and say that one violates the prohibition of slaughtering “an animal and its offspring”?

And we explain:

In the first clause,

the reason the Sages did not require the blood to be covered is that

if we say that they are obligated to cover it,

people will say

that the reason is that the shechita of a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor

is a proper shechita, and they will come to eat from their slaughter

⁵.

And we raise a difficulty:

The latter clause as well:

Why did the Sages say that it is prohibited to slaughter after them, and were they not concerned that

since the Sages say

that

it is prohibited to slaughter after them,

people will say

that the reason is that

it is a proper shechita, and they will come to eat from their slaughter?

And we answer:

In the latter clause,

we are not concerned that people will say that the reason one does not slaughter after a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor is that their shechita is valid, since they will certainly

say

that the one who did not slaughter after them did so because

meat

is

not what he was asking about,

and therefore he did not slaughter after them.

And we raise a difficulty:

In the first clause as well,

why should we not require the blood of the slaughter of a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor to be covered? There is no concern that people will say that their shechita is valid, since those who see him will certainly

say

that he is covering the blood not because he is performing a mitzva, but

because he needs to clean his courtyard,

so that it will not be soiled with blood? And we answer: What can be said if he

slaughtered in a garbage dump—

what is there to say?

For in that case it is impossible to say that the covering is for the sake of cleanliness, and one who sees the blood being covered there will come to say that the shechita of a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor is valid. And likewise, if someone

came

before the court

to seek its guidance

as to whether he must cover the blood of the slaughter of a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor,

what is there to say?

For if the court tells him that he is obligated, there is concern that he will think to himself that the shechita of a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor is valid and will come to eat from their slaughter. Since there is concern in both these cases, the Sages exempted all cases of covering the blood of the slaughter of a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor.

And we raise a difficulty:

According to your reasoning,

that with regard to covering the blood you are concerned that he might come to seek the court’s guidance—

in the latter clause as well,

with regard to “an animal and its offspring,” if he

came to seek the court’s guidance

as to whether it is permitted to slaughter after a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor,

what is there to say?

For if the court tells him that it is prohibited, he will think that their shechita is valid. And we answer:

Rather,

in fact,

the Sages

are not concerned at all that people will come to deem the shechita of a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor valid . And

they disagree with regard to the entire matter!

That is, in the first clause as well, the Sages disagree and maintain that one must cover the blood of the slaughter of a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor because of the uncertainty. They did not say anything in the first clause because

they wait for Rabbi Meir until he completes his statement

so that he can finish his words,

and then they disagree with him

concerning all his statements, both in the first clause and in the latter clause.

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted, the Sages:

Their reasoning is that they proceed

stringently,

and are concerned that perhaps the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor slaughtered properly.

But Rabbi Meir—

what is the reason

that he exempts one from covering the blood and permits slaughtering in the case of “an animal and its offspring”? The matter is uncertain as to whether the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor slaughtered properly, and in a case of uncertainty one should proceed stringently.

And we answer:

Rabbi Yaakov said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Meir would require

lashes

for

one who eats from

their slaughter, because of

the prohibition of

an animal carcass.

That is, according to Rabbi Meir, this is not a matter of uncertainty; rather, it is certain that they did not slaughter properly. One who eats from their slaughter is even liable to lashes for eating an animal carcass. Therefore, one may also be lenient and exempt him from covering the blood, since their slaughter is not valid .

And we raise a difficulty:

What is the reason

that Rabbi Meir maintains that their slaughter is certainly an animal carcass?

And we answer:

Rabbi Ami said: Since most of their actions

of the deaf-mute, imbecile, and minor

are defective!

Since most of the time they do not slaughter properly, their slaughter has the status of a definite animal carcass .

Rav Pappa said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua—and some say: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: Why specifically

did Rabbi Ami need to explain that Rabbi Meir’s reason is because

most

of their actions are defective?

Even

if only a

minority

of their actions were defective, while most of the time they slaughtered properly,

also

Rabbi Meir would have required lashes of one who ate from their slaughter, since he would be considered to have eaten a definite animal carcass.

For Rabbi Meir is concerned for the minority,

and if so,

combine the minority with the ḥazaka ⁹,

since there is also a ḥazaka of prohibition supporting the minority. For this animal, concerning which we are uncertain whether it was slaughtered properly and thereby permitted for consumption, has the status of an animal presumed prohibited [since before it was slaughtered it was prohibited as a limb from a living animal] .

And since the ḥazaka of prohibition supports the minority,

the majority is weakened!

Even though most of their actions are proper, the majority does not have the power to validate their shechita .

As we learned in the Mishna: An infant who was found beside a mass of dough, with dough in his hand. It is certain that he touched the dough, but we do not know whether the infant was ritually pure or not . Rabbi Meir declares

the dough pure,

but the Sages declare it impure, because it is the way of an infant to play with things,

playing in refuse heaps, where creeping creatures are found, and he certainly became impure through contact with a creeping creature.

And we say: What is Rabbi Meir's reason

that he declares the dough pure? —

He holds: Most infants play

in refuse heaps,

and a minority do not play, and this dough has a presumption of purity,

since initially it was certainly pure .

but a minority do not, and this dough has a presumption of ritual purity,

since it was certainly pure originally .