## Chullin Daf 23b

###### Chullin 23b:1
[Chullin 23b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23b:1)

דְּאָמַר מַיְיתֵי וּמַתְנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**as he says** that one who sacrifices a *palges* **brings** the meal offering and the libation of a ram **and stipulates:** If it is a ram, this is its meal offering and libation, and if it is a lamb, whose meal offering and libation are less than that of the ram, then the remainder will be a gift offering.


###### Chullin 23b:2
[Chullin 23b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23b:2)

מִי אָמְרִינַן: אַיִל וָכֶבֶשׂ מַתְנֵה, בִּבְרִיָּה לָא מַתְנֵה, אוֹ דִלְמָא בִּבְרִיָּה נָמֵי מַתְנֵה, דְּאָמַר: אִי בְּרִיָּה הָוֵה – לֶיהֱוֵי כּוּלֵּיהּ נְדָבָה? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The dilemma is: **Do we say** that he **stipulates** only if it is **a ram or** if it is **a lamb,** but **he does not stipulate** the possibility that it is **an entity** in and of itself, as bar Padda does not accept such a possibility? If so, bar Padda holds that one who vowed to bring a ram or a lamb can fulfill his obligation by bringing a *palges* and stipulating accordingly. **Or perhaps** bar Padda holds that **he also stipulates** the possibility that it is **an entity** in and of itself, and in **that** case **he says: If** it **is an entity, let the entire** libation **be a gift** offering. According to that possibility, even according to bar Padda, if one vowed to bring a ram or a lamb and brought a *palges*, due to the uncertainty he does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Chullin 23b:3
[Chullin 23b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23b:3)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה מִן הֶחָמֵץ אוֹ מִן הַמַּצָּה״, וְהֵבִיא שִׂיאוּר, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The concept of an entity in and of itself is mentioned with regard to a thanks offering, with which one must bring twenty tenths of an ephah for the accompanying loaves: Ten tenths of an ephah for *matza* and ten for leavened bread. **Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma:** With regard to **one who says: It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **loaves of a thanks offering of leavened bread or of *matza*, and he brought leavening** dough [***siur***], **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Chullin 23b:4
[Chullin 23b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23b:4)

שִׂיאוּר דְּמַאן? אִי שִׂיאוּר דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר – לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַצָּה מְעַלַּיְיתָא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: ***Siur*** according **to whose** opinion? **If** the reference is to the ***siur* of Rabbi Meir,** who says that it is dough at the stage when its surface pales, according **to Rabbi Yehuda** it is not leavened bread at all; **it is full-fledged *matza*** and one fulfills his vow to bring *matza*.


###### Chullin 23b:5
[Chullin 23b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23b:5)

אִי דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – חָמֵץ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** the reference is to the *siur* **of Rabbi Yehuda,** who says that it is dough at the stage when it has cracks that look like the antennae of locusts and is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** Rabbi Meir holds that **it is** full-fledged **leavened bread,** and one fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread.


###### Chullin 23b:6
[Chullin 23b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23b:6)

וְאִי דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מִדְּלָקֵי עֲלֵיהּ – חָמֵץ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the reference is to the *siur* **of Rabbi Meir** and is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** although one is not liable to receive *karet* for eating it on Passover, **from** the *halakha* **that one is flogged for** eating **it** on Passover it **is** clearly **leavened bread,** with which one fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread.


###### Chullin 23b:7
[Chullin 23b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23b:7)

אֶלָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַאי? סְפֵיקָא הָוֵי, וְנָפֵיק מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ, אוֹ דִלְמָא בְּרִיָּה הוּא, וְלָא נָפֵיק?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the dilemma is with regard to the *siur* **of Rabbi Yehuda** and is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who holds that although one is obligated to destroy it before Passover, one is not liable to receive lashes for eating it on Passover. It is unclear whether this is due to uncertainty or due to *siur* having a unique status. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira raises the dilemma: **What** is its status? **Is** it a case of **uncertainty, and** consequently one who vowed to bring loaves of *matza* or leavened bread and brings *siur* **fulfills** his obligation **whichever** way **you** look at it, because if it is *matza*, he fulfills his vow to bring *matza*, and if it is leavened bread, he fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread? **Or perhaps** *siur* **is an entity** in and of itself, neither *matza* nor leavened bread, **and he does not fulfill** his obligation at all.


###### Chullin 23b:8
[Chullin 23b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23b:8)

וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה״ – מֵבִיא תּוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ, וְכֵיוָן דְּאִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ בְּתוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ, הָא לָא יָדַע הַאי גַּבְרָא אִי חָמֵץ הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי מַצָּה, אִי מַצָּה הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי חָמֵץ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Even if it is a case of uncertainty, how can a person fulfill his vow with that *siur*? **But doesn’t Rav Huna say** that **one who says: It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **loaves of a thanks offering,** is obligated to **bring a thanks offering and** all **its loaves,** twenty tenths of an ephah, ten for matza and ten for leavened bread? **And since he is obligated to** bring **a thanks offering and** all **its loaves, but this man does not know whether** the *siur* that he brought **is leavened bread so that he will bring *matza*,** or **whether** the *siur* that he brought **is *matza* so that he will bring leavened bread,** so how can he fulfill his vow? In any case, the only way that he could fulfill his vow would be to bring an additional twenty tenths of an ephah.


###### Chullin 23b:9
[Chullin 23b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23b:9)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי חַלָּה לִפְטוֹר תּוֹדָתוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** the dilemma of Rabbi Zeira is **necessary** only in a case **where one said: It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring the **loaf** element of the thanks offering **to exempt the thanks offering of so-and-so** from the obligation to bring loaves, as in that case he can fulfill his vow because he did not obligate himself to bring a thanks offering.


###### Chullin 23b:10
[Chullin 23b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23b:10)

סוֹף סוֹף הָא לָא יָדַע הַאי גַּבְרָא, אִי חָמֵץ הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי מַצָּה, אִי מַצָּה הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי חָמֵץ! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּלָא אָמַר ״לִפְטוֹר״, מִיפָּק גַּבְרָא יְדֵי נִדְרוֹ נָפֵיק אוֹ לָא נָפֵיק? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **Ultimately, this man** who brings the thanks offering **does not know whether** the *siur* that the other contributed **is leavened bread so that he will bring *matza*,** or **whether** the *siur* that the other contributed **is *matza* so that he will bring leavened bread.** Therefore, the man bringing the thanks offering must bring both matza and unleavened bread in addition to the *siur*, and the one who vowed has then not exempted him from any obligation by contributing the *siur*. The Gemara responds: **No,** the dilemma of Rabbi Zeira is **necessary** only in a case **where** he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of leavened bread or *matza* for the thanks offering of so-and-so, but **did not say: To exempt** his thanks offering. In that case, he is not obligated to fulfill the other’s obligation, and the dilemma is: **Does the man fulfill his vow** by bringing the loaves of *siur* **or does he not fulfill** his vow? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Chullin 23b:11
[Chullin 23b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23b:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** כָּשֵׁר בַּפָּרָה – פָּסוּל בָּעֶגְלָה, כָּשֵׁר בָּעֶגְלָה – פָּסוּל בַּפָּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** That which is **fit in** a red **heifer** is **unfit in a heifer** whose neck is broken; that which is **fit in a heifer** whose neck is broken is **unfit in** a red **heifer.**


###### Chullin 23b:12
[Chullin 23b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23b:12)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פָּרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה, בַּעֲרִיפָה פְּסוּלָה; עֶגְלָה בַּעֲרִיפָה כְּשֵׁרָה, בִּשְׁחִיטָה פְּסוּלָה; (נמצאת) [נִמְצָא] כָּשֵׁר בַּפָּרָה – פָּסוּל בָּעֶגְלָה, כָּשֵׁר בָּעֶגְלָה – פָּסוּל בַּפָּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *baraita* in explanation of the mishna: With regard to the red **heifer, with slaughter** it is **fit; with breaking the neck** it is **unfit.** With regard to the **heifer** whose neck is broken, **with breaking the neck** it is **fit; with slaughter** it is **unfit. Consequently,** that which is **fit in** a red **heifer** is **unfit in a heifer** whose neck is broken; that which is **fit in a heifer** whose neck is broken is **unfit in** a red **heifer.**


###### Chullin 23b:13
[Chullin 23b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/23b:13)

וּתְהֵא פָּרָה כְּשֵׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה עֶגְלָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה – הוּכְשְׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה, פָּרָה שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה – אֵינָהּ דִּין שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And let** it be derived that the red **heifer** is **fit with breaking the neck by means of an *a fortiori*** inference: **If a heifer** whose neck is broken, **which is not rendered fit with slaughter, is rendered fit with breaking the neck,** then with regard to a red **heifer, which is rendered fit with slaughter, isn’t it logical that it is rendered fit with breaking the neck?**