מפת הסוגיא — חולין מ״אSugya map — Chullin 41

המשנה אוסרת לשחוט כך שהדם נשפך לתוך ים, נהר או כלים — שנראה כשוחט כדרך עובדי עבודה זרה; אבל מותר לשחוט לתוך גומה עגולה (״עוגה״) שיש בה מים, ובספינה — על גבי כלים. אסור לשחוט לתוך גומה בקרקע כלל, אבל עושה אדם גומה בתוך ביתו כדי שייכנס הדם לתוכה; ובשוק לא יעשה כן, כדי שלא…

MISHNA: One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow, neither into seas, nor into rivers, nor into vessels, as in all those cases it appears that he is slaughtering the animal in the manner of idolaters. But one may slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a round excavation containing water. And on a ship, one may slaughter an animal onto vessels as it is clear that his objective is to avoid sullying the ship. One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all, but one may fashion a small hole inside his house so that the blood will enter into it. And in the marketplace one may not do so, so that he will not

…ייראה כמחקה את המינים (הכופרים ועובדי עבודה זרה).

appear to emulate [yeḥakkeh] the heretics.

הגמרא שואלת: במה שונה שחיטה לתוך ים שאסורה — מפני שיאמרו ׳לשר של הים הוא שוחט׳? אם כך, גם לתוך עוגה של מים ייאסר, שיאמרו ׳לבבואה (להשתקפות שלו) הוא שוחט׳! אמר רבא: המשנה שנתה במים עכורים, שאין רואים בהם בבואה.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow, neither into seas, nor into rivers, nor into vessels, but one may slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a round excavation containing water. The Gemara asks: What is different about slaughter into seas? Is it that one may not perform it, as onlookers will say: He is slaughtering to the angel of the sea? If so, slaughter into a round excavation containing water should also be prohibited, as onlookers will say: He is slaughtering to his reflection [bavua], which is also similar to idolatry. Rava said: The tanna’im taught that halakha in the case of murky water, in which no reflection can be seen.

הגמרא מקשה על ההיתר לעשות גומה בבית: והרי אמרת ברישא ש׳אין שוחטין לגומא כל עיקר׳! אמר אביי: הרישא עוסקת בגומה שבשוק.

§ The mishna states: One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all, but one may fashion a small hole inside his house so that the blood will enter into it. The Gemara asks: How is it permitted to slaughter and have the blood flow into a hole inside his house? But didn’t you initially say that one may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all? Abaye said: The first clause of the mishna, where there is a blanket prohibition against having the blood flow into a small hole, is referring to a small hole that is in the marketplace.

אמר לו רבא: והרי מכך שהסיפא שונה ׳ובשוק לא יעשה כן׳ — משמע שהרישא אינה עוסקת בשוק!

Rava said to him: But isn’t it so that from the fact that the latter clause teaches: And in the marketplace one may not do so, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are not dealing with the marketplace?

אלא אמר רבא, כך אומרת המשנה: אין שוחטין לתוך גומה כלל; והרוצה לנקות את חצרו (שלא תתלכלך בדם) — כיצד יעשה? עושה מקום מחוץ לגומה ושוחט שם, והדם זורם ויורד לגומה. ובשוק לא יעשה כן, שלא יחקה את המינים.

Rather, Rava said that this is what the mishna is saying: One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all. And one who wishes to clean his courtyard and ensure that it will not be sullied in blood, how does he do so? He fashions a place with an incline or a furrow outside the small hole, and slaughters the animal there, and the blood flows and descends into the hole. And in the marketplace one may not do so, so that he will not appear to emulate the heretics.

שנויה ברייתא כדעת רבא: היה מהלך בספינה ואין לו מקום בספינה לשחוט — מוציא את ידו אל מחוץ לספינה ושוחט, והדם זורם ויורד על דופנות הספינה; ואין שוחט לתוך גומה כלל.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: If one was traveling on a ship and he has no place on the ship to slaughter an animal, he extends his hand with a knife, holds the head of the animal outside the walls of the ship, and slaughters the animal there; and the blood flows and descends down the sides of the ship. He may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow directly into the sea. And one may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all.

והרוצה לנקות את חצרו — עושה מקום מחוץ לגומה ושוחט, והדם זורם ויורד לגומה. ובשוק לא יעשה כן, משום שנאמר ׳ובחקתיהם לא תלכו׳; ואם עשה כן — צריך לבדוק אחריו שמא מין הוא.

And one who wishes to clean his courtyard and ensure that it will not be sullied with blood, how does he do so? He fashions a place with an incline or a furrow outside the small hole, and slaughters the animal there, and the blood flows and descends into the hole. And in the marketplace, one may not do so, as it is stated: “Neither shall you follow their statutes” (Leviticus 18:3). And if he did so, he requires examination after his actions to ascertain whether he is a heretic.

המשנה: השוחט חולין ואומר שהוא שוחט לשם עולה, לשם זבחי שלמים, לשם אשם תלוי, לשם פסח או לשם תודה — שחיטתו פסולה, שנראה כמקדיש בהמות ושוחט קודשים בחוץ; ורבי שמעון מכשיר.

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal and asserts that he is slaughtering it for the sake of a burnt offering, for the sake of a peace offering, for the sake of a provisional guilt offering, for the sake of a Paschal offering, or for the sake of a thanks offering, his slaughter is not valid, as it appears that he is consecrating animals and slaughtering sacrificial animals outside the Temple. And Rabbi Shimon deems his slaughter valid.

שניים שאוחזים יחד בסכין ושוחטים, אחד מתכוון לשם אחד מכל הקרבנות הללו ואחד לשם דבר כשר — שחיטתם פסולה. אבל השוחט לשם חטאת, לשם אשם ודאי, לשם בכור, לשם מעשר או לשם תמורה — שחיטתו כשרה, שקרבנות אלו באים רק בחובה, ואין חשש שהקדישם.

If there were two people grasping a knife together and slaughtering an animal, one slaughtering for the sake of one of all those enumerated in the first clause of the mishna and one slaughtering for the sake of a legitimate matter, their slaughter is not valid. With regard to one who slaughters an animal for the sake of a sin offering, for the sake of a guilt offering for a definite transgression, for the sake of the offering of a firstborn, for the sake of the offering of animal tithe, or for the sake of a substitute for a sacrificial animal, his slaughter is valid. All of these offerings may be brought only as obligations and not as gifts. Therefore, there is no concern that he consecrated the animals.

זה הכלל: כל קרבן שבא בנדר ובנדבה — השוחט לשמו, הבהמה אסורה; ושאינו בא בנדר ובנדבה — השוחט לשמו, שחיטתו כשרה.

This is the principle: For any item, i.e., offering, which is consecrated as a voluntary vow or gift, in the case of one who slaughters for its sake the animal is forbidden. And for any offering that is not consecrated as a voluntary vow or gift but is an obligation that is incumbent upon him, in the case of one who slaughters for its sake the animal is permitted.

הגמרא שואלת על רשימת המשנה: אשם תלוי — וכי בא בנדר ובנדבה? הרי הוא בא רק על חיוב מספק! אמר רבי יוחנן: משנה זו כדעת מי היא? כרבי אלעזר, שאמר: מתנדב אדם אשם תלוי בכל יום.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: In the case of one who slaughters an animal and asserts that he is slaughtering it for the sake of a burnt offering, for the sake of a peace offering, for the sake of a provisional guilt offering, for the sake of a Paschal offering, or for the sake of a thanks offering, the slaughter is not valid. This is because one who slaughters for the sake of any type of offering that is consecrated as a vow or as a gift renders the animal forbidden. The Gemara asks: Is a provisional guilt offering fit to be consecrated as a vow or as a gift? A provisional guilt offering is brought only when one is obligated to do so due to uncertainty whether or not he is liable to bring a sin offering. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha in the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says in a mishna (Karetot 25a): A person donates a provisional guilt offering every day if he chooses, due to concern that perhaps he violated a prohibition.

ועוד: פסח — וכי בא בנדב ובנדר? הרי זמנו קבוע (ערב פסח)! אמר רבי אושעיא: שונה פסח, הואיל והפרשתו (ייחוד הבהמה לקרבן) נעשית בכל ימות השנה.

The Gemara asks: Is a Paschal offering fit to be consecrated as a vow or as a gift? The time is fixed for its offering on Passover eve, when bringing it is an obligation, and it may not be brought on any other day. Rabbi Oshaya said: The Paschal offering is different, since although the date for bringing and slaughtering it is the fourteenth of Nisan, its designation can be performed throughout the entire year.

אמר רבי ינאי: לא שנו שהשחיטה פסולה אלא בבהמות תמימות, אבל בבעלות מום — ידוע לכל שאינן ראויות לקרבן, ואין חשש. ורבי יוחנן אמר: אפילו בבעלות מום, שלפעמים מוטל דבר־מה על המום ומכסה אותו, ואין הדבר ידוע.

Rabbi Yannai says: The Sages taught that slaughter of an animal for the sake of an offering is not valid only if the animals were unblemished. But with regard to animals with blemishes, the slaughterer knows that they are blemished and disqualified from sacrifice. Therefore, despite his declaration, there is no concern that his actual intent was to slaughter the animal for that purpose. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Slaughter of an animal for the sake of an offering is not valid even if the animals were blemished as well, as there are times that an item is cast over the blemish and covers it, and he does not know that the animal is blemished.

על הדין ׳השוחט לשם חטאת — כשרה׳ אמר רבי יוחנן: לא שנו אלא במי שאינו מחויב חטאת, אבל מחויב חטאת — אמור: לשם חטאתו הוא עושה. ומקשים: והרי לא אמר ׳לשם חטאתי׳! אמר רבי אבהו: מדובר באומר ׳לשם חטאתי׳.

The mishna teaches: With regard to one who slaughters an animal for the sake of a sin offering, his slaughter is valid, as, since one cannot voluntarily contribute a sin offering, there is no concern that the onlookers will draw the wrong conclusion. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Sages taught that slaughter of an animal for the sake of a sin offering is valid only with regard to a slaughterer who is not liable to bring a sin offering. But a slaughterer who knows that he is liable to bring a sin offering, his slaughter is not valid. Say that he is performing consecration and slaughter for the sake of his sin offering. The Gemara asks: But didn’t he say before the slaughter: For the sake of a sin offering, and he did not say: For the sake of my sin offering? Why, then, is that a concern? Rabbi Abbahu said: Indeed, the reference is to a case where he says: I am slaughtering this animal for the sake of my sin offering.

על ׳לשם תמורה — כשרה׳ אמר רבי אלעזר: לא שנו אלא כשאין לו זבח (בהמת קרבן) בתוך ביתו, אבל יש לו זבח בתוך ביתו — אמור: ממיר הוא בו את הבהמה הזו. ומקשים: והרי לא אמר ׳לשם תמורת זבחי׳! אמר רבי אבהו: מדובר באומר ׳לשם תמורת זבחי׳.

The mishna teaches: With regard to one who slaughters for the sake of a substitute for a sacrificial animal, his slaughter is valid. Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages taught that the slaughter is valid only in a case where he does not have an animal consecrated as an offering inside his house for which it can be the substitute, but if he has an animal consecrated as an offering in his house, say that he is substituting this animal for it, and the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara asks: But didn’t he say before the slaughter: For the sake of a substitute for a sacrificial animal, and he did not say: For the sake of a substitute for my animal consecrated as an offering? Why, then, is that a concern? Rabbi Abbahu said: Indeed, the reference is to a case where he says: I am slaughtering this animal for the sake of a substitute for my animal consecrated as an offering.

׳זה הכלל׳ — מה בא לרבות? לרבות עולת נזיר: שלא תאמר ׳הרי הוא לא נדר בנזירות ואינו חייב בעולה זו׳ — אמור: שמא נדר בצנעה ואיש אינו יודע.

The mishna states that this is the principle: For any offering that is consecrated as a voluntary vow or gift, in the case of one who slaughters for its sake, the animal is forbidden. The Gemara asks: What case does this clause add? The list in the mishna appears to be comprehensive. The Gemara answers: The clause serves to add the burnt offering of a nazirite. As, lest you say there is no concern in that case, as that person did not vow to become a nazirite and could not possibly be obligated to bring that offering, therefore, the tanna teaches that there is a concern if he said he was slaughtering for the sake of the burnt offering of a nazirite. Say that perhaps he vowed to become a nazirite in private, and no one else was aware of it.

׳ושאינו נידר ונידב׳ — מה בא לרבות? לרבות עולת יולדת: השוחט לשמה — שחיטתו כשרה, שהיא קרבן חובה.

The Gemara asks: What is added by the second half of the principle: And for any offering that is not consecrated as a voluntary vow or as a gift, in the case of one who slaughters for its sake the animal is permitted? The Gemara answers: It serves to add the burnt offering of a woman after childbirth. If one slaughters an animal for the sake of a burnt offering of a woman after childbirth, the slaughter is valid, as it is an obligation.

אמר רבי אלעזר: לא שנו אלא כשאין לו אישה, אבל יש לו אישה — אמור: לשמה (לעולת אשתו) הוא עושה. ומקשים: והרי לא אמר ׳לשם עולת אשתי׳! אמר רבי אבהו: מדובר באומר ׳לשם עולת אשתי׳.

Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages taught that the slaughter is valid only in a case where he does not have a wife. But if he has a wife, say that he performs consecration and slaughter of the animal for her sake and therefore the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara asks: But didn’t he say before the slaughter: For the sake of the burnt offering of a woman after childbirth, and he did not say: For the sake of the burnt offering of my wife after childbirth? Why, then, is that a concern? Rabbi Abbahu said: Indeed, the reference is to a case where he says: I am slaughtering this animal for the sake of the burnt offering of my wife after childbirth.

הגמרא תמהה: פשיטא — הרי זה מובן מאליו שבאומר כך השחיטה פסולה!

The Gemara objects: This is obvious. Clearly, if he explicitly declared that the slaughter is for the sake of the burnt offering of his wife after childbirth the slaughter is not valid.

ומשיבה: שלא תאמר — אילו באמת ילדה אשתו, היה לדבר קול, ומשלא שמענו אין חשש והשחיטה כשרה; לכן משמיע לנו: אמור שמא הפילה, ונתחייבה קרבן בלי שנודע הדבר.

The Gemara answers: Lest you say: If it is so that his wife gave birth, it would have generated publicity and been common knowledge; therefore, one might conclude that the slaughter is valid even if he declared that the slaughter is for the sake of the burnt offering of his wife after childbirth, as in fact she did not give birth. To counter this, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that the slaughter is not valid. Say that his wife miscarried and is liable to bring an offering, but it is not common knowledge, because the baby was not born alive.