Chullin 86a — the Talmud in English

And we answer: Rav Dimi does not mean that Rabbi specifically said to him, “Go slaughter by tearing,” and indeed it is possible that Rabbi said, “Go slaughter by cutting the throat,” since even with slaughter by cutting the throat one is exempt from covering. Rather,

Rav Dimi stated a “not only” argument.

Rav Dimi meant:

Not only “Go slaughter by cutting the throat,”

for which, according to Rabbi, one is exempt from covering because

it is not slaughter at all; but “Go slaughter by tearing,”

which is considered slaughter, except that it is unfit,

say

that Rabbi concedes that although it is

unfit slaughter, it is called slaughter, and covering should be required; therefore he teaches us

that Rav Dimi says that even with the slaughter of a tereifa Rabbi holds that one is exempt from covering,

in accordance with Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba,

who said above that, according to Rabbi, the words of Rabbi Shimon concerning covering the blood appeared correct.

We raise a difficulty:

And according to the one who says, “Go slaughter by cutting the throat,” what is the reason that he did not say, “Go slaughter by tearing”?

And if you would say

that he holds that Rabbi could not have said to him, “Go slaughter by tearing,” because

he holds

Rabbi

that unfit slaughter is called slaughter,

and therefore, if he had rendered it a tereifa, he would not have been exempt from covering,

but Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi saw the words of Rabbi Shimon as correct concerning covering the blood,

that one who slaughters a tereifa is exempt from covering,

and he taught it in the language of the Sages?

And we answer:

He stated a “not only” argument:

Not only “Go slaughter by tearing,”

for which Rabbi holds that one is exempt from covering, because

unfit slaughter is not called slaughter; but concerning “Go slaughter by cutting the throat,” say

that Rabbi holds

“There is no slaughter for a bird by Torah law, and its slaughter by cutting the throat is its slaughter”

and covering should be required. He therefore teaches us

that even with slaughter by cutting the throat Rabbi exempts one from covering, because Rabbi holds that there is slaughter for a bird by Torah law, as he expounded from

“as I commanded you.”

We raise a difficulty:

And did a worm fall into his flax

of Rabbi Hiyya?

But Rabin bar Abba said—and some say that Rabbi Avin bar Sheva said: From the time that the exiles ascended,

the Sages of Babylonia to the Land of Israel [in the generations of the Sages of the Talmud],

the meteors ceased,

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

and the earthquakes,

shakings of the earth,

and the winds,

that blow fiercely,

and the thunder. And their wine did not sour, and their flax was not struck

of the people of the Land of Israel [who previously had been struck by all these on account of their sins],

and the Sages directed their eyes toward Rabbi Hiyya and his sons,

who had ascended from the exile, and through their merit the calamities ceased! And if so, how is it possible that Rabbi Hiyya’s flax was struck?

And we answer:

For their merit is effective,

that of Rabbi Hiyya and his sons—

for the world,

but

not for themselves,

is it effective, because their reward is preserved for them for the World to Come .

As in the statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav. For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Every single day

in the generation of Rabbi Hanina

a heavenly voice goes forth and says: The entire world—

is sustained on account of Hanina, My son!

That is, through his merit.

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

For he himself is sustained with hardship and in constraint .

Mishna:

A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor who slaughtered, and others see them

slaughtering according to halakha—

it is obligatory

for anyone who sees the blood

to cover

it! For the slaughter of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor is valid when it was performed properly.

And if they slaughtered

among themselves—

he is exempt from covering!

For it is certain that they slaughtered improperly, and for invalid slaughter one is not obligated to cover.

And likewise

concerning the prohibition of

“it and its offspring,” when they slaughtered

the mother or the offspring first,

and others see them, it is forbidden to slaughter after them

the mother or the offspring.

And if they slaughtered

among themselves—

Rabbi Meir permits slaughtering after them,

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

But the Sages prohibit

slaughtering after them, because one must be concerned lest the deaf-mute, imbecile, and minor slaughtered properly.

And they concede

the Sages

that if he slaughtered

after them

he does not receive forty lashes—

for he is not lashed for the prohibition of “it and its offspring,” since here there is only a doubt whether he violated the prohibition of “it and its offspring.”

Gemara:

We raise a difficulty:

And the Sages,

who are concerned lest the deaf-mute, imbecile, and minor slaughtered properly,

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

to obligate covering the blood of their slaughter due to the doubt,

and what is different in the latter clause, that they disagree

and say that one violates through them the prohibition of slaughtering “it and its offspring”?

And we explain:

The first clause

is the reason that the Sages did not obligate covering the blood, for

if we say that they are obligated to cover,—

they will say,

those who hear this ruling will think that the reason is that the slaughter of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor

is proper slaughter, and they will come to eat from their slaughter 5 .

⁵.

We raise a difficulty:

The latter clause as well,

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

since the Sages say

that

it is forbidden to slaughter after them—

they will say

that the reason for this is that

it is proper slaughter, 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 the deaf-mute, imbecile, and minor is that their slaughter is valid, since they will certainly

say

those who hear that they did not slaughter after them—

“meat”

it

is what was not in question for him,

and therefore they did not slaughter after them.

We raise a difficulty:

The first clause as well,

why should we not obligate covering the blood of the slaughter of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor? For there is no concern lest they say that their slaughter is valid, since those who see him will certainly

say

that the one who sees him covering the blood is not doing so on account of a mitzva, but rather

he needs to clean his courtyard

so that it will not be soiled with blood? And we answer: But if

he slaughtered in a refuse heap—

what is there to say?

For in this 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 slaughter of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor is valid. And likewise, if

one came

someone

to seek counsel

before the court as to whether he needs to cover the blood of the slaughter of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor,

what is there to say?

For if the court tells him that he is obligated, there is concern lest he think in his heart that the slaughter of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor is valid, and he will come to eat from their slaughter. And since in these two cases there is such a concern, the Sages therefore exempted one in all cases from covering the blood of the slaughter of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor.

We raise a difficulty:

And according to your reasoning,

that you are concerned, with regard to covering the blood, lest he come to seek counsel before the court—

the latter clause as well,

with regard to “it and its offspring,” if

he came to seek counsel

before the court as to whether it is permitted to slaughter after a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor—

what is there to say?

For if the court tells him that it is forbidden, he will think that their slaughter is valid? And we answer:

Rather,

indeed,

the Sages

are not concerned at all lest people come to deem the slaughter of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor valid . And

they disagree concerning the entire matter!

That is, the Sages also disagreed in the first clause and held that one is obligated to cover the blood of the slaughter of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor due to the doubt; they simply said nothing in the first clause because

they waited for Rabbi Meir until he completed the matter,

until he finished his statement,

and afterward they disagreed with him

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

We raise a difficulty:

Granted, the Sages,

their reason is that they proceed

stringently,

and are concerned lest the deaf-mute, imbecile, and minor slaughtered properly.

But Rabbi Meir—

what is the reason

that he exempts from covering the blood and permits [slaughtering] with regard to “it and its offspring”? For the matter is doubtful, lest the deaf-mute, imbecile, and minor slaughtered properly, and due to the doubt one should proceed stringently?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yaakov said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Meir would obligate

lashes

for

one who eats from

their slaughter, because of

the prohibition of

an animal carcass.

That is, according to Rabbi Meir, the matter is not doubtful; rather, it is certain that they did not slaughter properly, since one must even obligate lashes for eating an animal carcass upon one who eats from their slaughter. Therefore, also leniently, to exempt from covering the blood, it can be said that their slaughter is not valid .

We raise a difficulty:

What is the reason

that Rabbi Meir holds that their slaughter is certainly an animal carcass!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Ami said: Since most of their acts

of the deaf-mute, imbecile, and minor

are defective!

For since most of the time they do not slaughter properly, it is like certain animal carrion .

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

why was Rabbi Ami required to explain that the reason of Rabbi Meir is because

the majority

of their acts is defective? For

even

if only

a minority

of their acts were defective, while most of the time they slaughter properly,

also

Rabbi Meir would obligate lashes for one who eats from their slaughter, because he is considered to be eating certainly an animal carcass.

For Rabbi Meir is concerned about the minority,

and if so—

join the minority to the presumption 9 ,

for there is also here a presumption of prohibition that supports the minority. For this animal, concerning which we are uncertain whether it was slaughtered properly and became permitted for eating, stands under a presumption of prohibition! [For before it was slaughtered, it was prohibited as a limb from a living animal]” .

And since the presumption of prohibition assists the minority—

the majority is weakened for him!

For although most of their acts are proper, the majority does not have the power to validate their slaughter .

For we learned: A child who was found beside the dough, with dough in his hand.

It is certain that he touched the dough, but we do not know whether the child is pure or not .

Rabbi Meir declares pure

the dough,

and the Sages declare it impure, because it is the way of a child to play with things,

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

And we say: What is Rabbi Meir’s reason

for declaring the dough pure? —

He holds: The majority of children play with things

in refuse heaps,

and a minority do not play with things, and this dough stands with a presumption of purity,

for initially it was certainly pure .