## Chullin Daf 13a

###### Chullin 13a:1
[Chullin 13a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/13a:1)

וְאֵין לָהֶן מַחְשָׁבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**but they do not have** the capacity to effect a halakhic status by means of **thought.**


###### Chullin 13a:2
[Chullin 13a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/13a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַחְשָׁבָה גְּרֵידְתָּא לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ – מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ נִיכֶּרֶת מִתּוֹךְ מַעֲשָׂיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba **said to** Rabbi Ami: With regard to a case of effecting a halakhic status by means of **thought alone,** Rabbi Yoḥanan **does not raise a dilemma. When he raises a dilemma,** it is with regard to a case where **his thought is discernible from his actions.**


###### Chullin 13a:3
[Chullin 13a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/13a:3)

כְּגוֹן דַּהֲוָה קָיְימָא עוֹלָה בַּדָּרוֹם, וְאַתְיַיהּ בַּצָּפוֹן וְשַׁחְטַהּ, מַאי? מִדְּאַתְיַיהּ בַּצָּפוֹן וְשַׁחְטַהּ אִיכַּוֵּין לַהּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא מָקוֹם הוּא דְּלָא אִיתְרְמִי לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**For example,** in a case **where** an animal that is brought as **a burnt offering was standing in the south** of the Temple courtyard **and** a minor **took it to the north** of the courtyard, the designated place for its slaughter, **and slaughtered it** there, **what** is the *halakha*? Can one conclude **from** the fact **that he took it to the north and slaughtered** it there that **he had** the **intent to** slaughter the animal for the sake of a burnt offering; **or perhaps** he moved the animal to the north because **a place did not happen** to be available **for him** in the south?


###### Chullin 13a:4
[Chullin 13a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/13a:4)

הָא נָמֵי אַמְרַהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן חֲדָא זִימְנָא, דִּתְנַן: הַמַּעֲלֶה פֵּירוֹתָיו לַגַּג מִפְּנֵי הַכְּנִימָה, וְיָרַד עֲלֵיהֶם טַל – אֵינָן בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״, וְאִם נִתְכַּוֵּין לְכָךְ – הֲרֵי הֵן בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ami asked: But with regard to **this** matter, **too, Rabbi Yoḥanan** already **said** a conclusive resolution **one time, as we learned** in a mishna (*Makhshirin* 6:1): In the case of **one who takes his produce up to the roof** to protect it **from insects, and dew fell upon it,** the produce **is not in** the category of the verse: “But **when** water **is placed** upon the seed” (Leviticus 11:38), from which it is derived that produce becomes susceptible to ritual impurity only if it is dampened by one of seven liquids and its owner was agreeable to its dampening. **And if** after taking the produce up to the roof **he intended** that the produce would be dampened by dew, the produce **is in** the category of the verse “But **when** water **is placed** upon the seed.”


###### Chullin 13a:5
[Chullin 13a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/13a:5)

הֶעֱלוּם חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְכַּוְּונוּ לְכָךְ, אֵינָן בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין לָהֶן מַחְשָׁבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
That mishna continues: In a case where **a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor took** the produce **up** to the roof, **even if they intended** that the produce would be dampened by dew, the produce **is not in** the category of the verse “But **when** water **is placed** upon the seed” **due to** the fact **that they have** the capacity to perform **an action but they do not have** the capacity for halakhically effective **thought.**


###### Chullin 13a:6
[Chullin 13a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/13a:6)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא הִיפֵּךְ בָּהֶן, אֲבָל הִיפֵּךְ בָּהֶן – הֲרֵי זֶה בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The *tanna* **taught** this *halakha* **only** in a case **where** the minor **did not turn them over. But** if **he turned them over,** indicating that he wants them to be dampened by the dew, the produce **is in** the category of the verse “But **when** water **is placed** upon the seed.” Evidently, Rabbi Yoḥanan rules that when the intention of a minor is apparent from his actions, it is halakhically effective.


###### Chullin 13a:7
[Chullin 13a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/13a:7)

הָכִי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אוֹ דְּרַבָּנַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami that **this** is **the dilemma** that Rabbi Yoḥanan **raises:** In a case where the intent of a minor is clear from his actions, is the fact that his thought is effective **by Torah law or by rabbinic law?** That is one version of the exchange between Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Ami.


###### Chullin 13a:8
[Chullin 13a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/13a:8)

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק מַתְנֵי הָכִי: אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָטָן יֵשׁ לוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אוֹ אֵין לוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak teaches** their exchange in **this** manner. **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma:** With regard to **a minor, does he have** the capacity to perform **an action** that is halakhically effective **or does he not have** the capacity to perform such **an action?**


###### Chullin 13a:9
[Chullin 13a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/13a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי: וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ מַחְשָׁבָה! מַאי שְׁנָא מַחְשָׁבָה דְּלָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? דִּתְנַן: אֵין לָהֶן מַחְשָׁבָה. מַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: יֵשׁ לָהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ami said to** Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: **And let** Rabbi Yoḥanan **raise this dilemma** with regard to the **thought** of a minor. **What is different** about the **thought** of a minor **that** Rabbi Yoḥanan **does not raise a dilemma?** Is it due to the fact **that we learned** in a mishna (*Kelim* 17:15): A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor **do not have** the capacity for effective **thought?** With regard to **action as well let him not raise this dilemma, as we learned** in the same mishna: **They have** the capacity to perform **an action.**


###### Chullin 13a:10
[Chullin 13a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/13a:10)

הָכִי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אוֹ דְּרַבָּנַן? וּפָשֵׁיט: יֵשׁ לָהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֵין לָהֶן מַחְשָׁבָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִדְּרַבָּנַן. מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ נִיכֶּרֶת מִתּוֹךְ מַעֲשָׂיו – מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אֵין לוֹ, מִדְּרַבָּנַן יֵשׁ לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami that **this** is **the dilemma** that Rabbi Yoḥanan **raises:** Is the fact that their actions are effective and their thought is ineffective **by Torah law,** and a minor’s action would consequently be effective even with regard to the sacrifice of a burnt offering, **or** is this fact **by rabbinic law** and it is merely a stringency? **And** Rabbi Yoḥanan **resolves** the dilemma: **They have** the capacity to perform **an action and** it is effective, **even by Torah law.** But **they do not have** the capacity for effective **thought, even by rabbinic law.** Nevertheless, in a case where **his thought is apparent from his actions, by Torah law he does not have** effective thought, and **by rabbinic law he has** effective thought.


###### Chullin 13a:11
[Chullin 13a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/13a:11)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל מֵרַב הוּנָא: מִנַּיִן לַמִּתְעַסֵּק בְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר״, שֶׁתְּהֵא שְׁחִיטָה לְשֵׁם בֶּן בָּקָר. אָמַר לוֹ: זוֹ בְּיָדֵינוּ הִיא, לְעַכֵּב מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לִרְצוֹנְכֶם תִּזְבָּחֻהוּ״, לְדַעְתְּכֶם זְבוּחוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Shmuel asked Rav Huna: From where** is it derived with regard **to one who acts unawares in** the slaughter of **sacrificial** animals, i.e., he slaughtered without intending to perform the act of slaughter at all, **that** the offering **is disqualified?** Rav Huna said to him that it is derived from a verse, **as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter the young bull”** (Leviticus 1:5), indicating **that the slaughter must be for the sake of a young bull,** i.e., knowing that he is performing an act of slaughter. Shmuel **said to** him: **we** received **this** as an established *halakha* already **that** one must have intent to slaughter the animal *ab initio*. But **from where** is it derived that intent to slaughter is **indispensable** even after the fact? It is derived from a verse, as **the verse states: “You shall slaughter it to your will”** (Leviticus 19:5), indicating: **Slaughter** the animal **with your intent,** i.e., in the form of a purposeful action.


###### Chullin 13a:12
[Chullin 13a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/13a:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁחִיטַת נׇכְרִי נְבֵלָה, וּמְטַמְּאָה בְּמַשָּׂא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Slaughter** performed by **a gentile** renders the animal **an unslaughtered carcass, and** the carcass **imparts ritual impurity through carrying.**


###### Chullin 13a:13
[Chullin 13a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/13a:13)

**גְּמָ׳** נְבֵלָה – אִין, אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה – לָא. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בְּרַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאִי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – הָאָמַר: סְתָם מַחְשֶׁבֶת נׇכְרִי לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The slaughter renders the animal **an unslaughtered carcass, yes; an item from which** deriving **benefit is prohibited, no. Who** is the *tanna* who **taught** the mishna? **Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rabbi Abba, said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, as, if** it were in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, doesn’t he say: The unspecified thought of a gentile is for idol worship.**


###### Chullin 13a:14
[Chullin 13a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/13a:14)

רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר: הָכִי קָתָנֵי, שְׁחִיטַת נׇכְרִי – נְבֵלָה, הָא דְּמִין – לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁחִיטַת מִין לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, פִּיתּוֹ – פַּת כּוּתִי, יֵינוֹ – יֵין נֶסֶךְ, סְפָרָיו – סִפְרֵי קוֹסְמִין, פֵּירוֹתָיו – טְבָלִין, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ami said** that **this** is what the mishna **is teaching: Slaughter** performed by **a gentile** renders the animal **an unslaughtered carcass, but** slaughter performed **by a heretic** is **for** the sake of **idol worship.** The Gemara notes: **We learn** from an inference in the mishna **that which the Sages taught** explictly in a *baraita*: **Slaughter** performed by **a heretic** is **for** the sake of **idol worship** and deriving benefit from it is prohibited, the halakhic status of **his bread** is that of **the bread of a Samaritan,** the status of **his wine** is that of **wine** used for **a libation** in idol worship, **his** sacred **scrolls** that he writes **are the scrolls of sorcerers** and it is a mitzva to burn them, **his produce is untithed produce** even if he separated *teruma* and tithes, **and some say: Even**