## Chullin Daf 2a

###### Chullin 2a:1
[Chullin 2a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/2a:1)

מַתְנִי׳ **הַכֹּל** שׁוֹחֲטִין וּשְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, שֶׁמָּא יְקַלְקְלוּ אֶת שְׁחִיטָתָן. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וַאֲחֵרִים רוֹאִין אוֹתָן – שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Everyone slaughters** an animal, i.e., can perform halakhically valid slaughter, **and their slaughter is valid, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, lest they ruin their slaughter** because they lack competence. **And** for **all of them, when they slaughtered** an animal **and others see** and supervise **them, their slaughter is valid.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** ״הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין״ – לְכַתְּחִלָּה, ״וּשְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה״ – דִּיעֲבַד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** There is an apparent contradiction between the first two phrases of the mishna. The *tanna* begins: **Everyone slaughters** an animal, indicating that their performing slaughter is permitted ***ab initio*,** and then teaches: **And their slaughter is valid,** indicating that their slaughter is valid only **after the fact.**


###### Chullin 2a:3
[Chullin 2a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/2a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְכֹל ״הַכֹּל״ לְכַתְּחִלָּה הוּא? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה: הַכֹּל מְמִירִין, אֶחָד הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׁים – הָכִי נָמֵי דִּלְכַתְּחִלָּה הוּא? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר אֹתוֹ טוֹב בְּרָע אוֹ רַע בְּטוֹב״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: And** does **every** use of the term: **Everyone,** indicate that the action in question is permitted ***ab initio*? If that is so,** in the mishna (*Temura* 2a), where it says: **Everyone substitutes** a non-sacred animal for a sacrificial animal, **both men and women, is** that **also** an expression indicating **that** it is permitted ***ab initio*? But isn’t it written: “He shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for good”** (Leviticus 27:10)?


###### Chullin 2a:4
[Chullin 2a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/2a:4)

הָתָם, כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא: לֹא שֶׁהָאָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְהָמִיר, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם הֵמִיר – מוּמָר, וְסוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi answers: **There, the reason** the mishna uses the word everyone is **that it** immediately **teaches:** That is **not** to say **that it is permitted for a person to substitute; rather,** it means **that if one did substitute** a non-sacred animal for a sacrificial animal, **substitution takes effect, and** the one who substituted the non-sacred animal **incurs [*vesofeg*] the forty** lashes that are the punishment for violating the prohibition “Nor substitute it.” But here, since the mishna does not similarly qualify its statement, it indicates that everyone may perform the slaughter *ab initio*.


###### Chullin 2a:5
[Chullin 2a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/2a:5)

אֶלָּא הַכֹּל מַעֲרִיכִין וְנֶעֱרָכִין, נוֹדְרִין וְנִידָּרִין, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּלְכַתְּחִלָּה? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וְכִי תֶחְדַּל לִנְדֹּר לֹא יִהְיֶה בְךָ חֵטְא״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Aḥa challenges: **But** a mishna teaches (*Arakhin* 2a): **Everyone takes** vows of **valuation** and is thereby obligated to donate to the Temple treasury the value fixed by the Torah based on the age and gender of the person valuated; **and** everyone **is valuated,** and therefore one who vowed to donate his fixed value is obligated to pay; everyone **vows** to donate the market value of a person as a slave to the Temple treasury and is thereby obligated to pay; **and** everyone is the object of **a vow** if others vowed to donate his market value. Is that **also** an expression indicating **that** it is permitted ***ab initio*? But it is written: “And if you shall cease to vow, there shall be no sin in you”** (Deuteronomy 23:23), indicating that it is preferable not to vow.


###### Chullin 2a:6
[Chullin 2a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/2a:6)

וּכְתִיב: ״טוֹב אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִדֹּר מִשֶּׁתִּדּוֹר וְלֹא תְשַׁלֵּם״, וְתַנְיָא: טוֹב מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹדֵר כׇּל עִיקָּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: טוֹב מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה נוֹדֵר וּמְשַׁלֵּם. וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא בְּאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is written: “It is better that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay”** (Ecclesiastes 5:4); **and it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to that verse: **Better than** both **this** one, who vows and does not pay, **and that** one, who vows and pays, is **one who does not take a vow at all;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Better than** both **this** one, who vows and does not pay, **and that** one, who does not vow at all, is **one who vows and pays** in fulfillment of that vow. Rav Aḥa comments: **And even Rabbi Yehuda states** his opinion **only in** a case where one vows and **says: This** animal **is** designated for sacrifice, as in that case there is no concern that he will fail to fulfill his commitment, since even if the animal is stolen or lost, he is not required to bring another in its place.