## Chullin Daf 3a

###### Chullin 3a:1
[Chullin 3a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3a:1)

חֶרֶב הֲרֵי הוּא כֶּחָלָל, אַב הַטּוּמְאָה הוּא, לְטַמְּיֵיהּ לְסַכִּין, וַאֲזַל סַכִּין וְטַמִּיתֵיהּ לְבָשָׂר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is derived from the juxtaposition of “slain” to “sword” that the halakhic status of **a sword** or any other metal vessel that comes into contact with a corpse **is like** that of **a corpse** itself. Similarly, if a metal utensil comes in contact with a person impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, it assumes his status. Therefore, since the impure person **is a primary source of ritual impurity, let him render the knife impure,** rendering it as well a primary source of impurity, **and the knife** then **goes and renders the flesh impure.**


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

אֶלָּא דְּאִיטַּמִּי בְּשֶׁרֶץ, וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם דְּאִיטַּמִּי בְּמֵת, וּכְגוֹן שֶׁבָּדַק קְרוּמִית שֶׁל קָנֶה וְשָׁחַט בָּהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: בַּכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִים, בֵּין בְּצוֹר בֵּין בִּזְכוּכִית בֵּין בִּקְרוּמִית שֶׁל קָנֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is a case **where** the person **became impure with** impurity imparted by **a creeping animal;** as he assumes first-degree ritual impurity status and does not render vessels impure, the knife remains ritually pure. **And if you wish, say** instead **that actually he became impure with** impurity imparted by **a corpse, and** it is a case **where one examined the stalk of a reed,** which is a flat wooden vessel that does not become ritually impure, to ensure that it is perfectly smooth with no nicks, **and slaughtered with it, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **One may slaughter** an animal **with any** sharp object, **whether with a flint, or with glass** shards, **or with the stalk of a reed.**


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

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: הָכִי קָתָנֵי – הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ כּוּתִי. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? כְּשֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו, אֲבָל יוֹצֵא וְנִכְנָס – לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Abaye said** in resolution of the apparent contradiction in the mishna **that this** is what the mishna **is teaching: Everyone slaughters, and even a Samaritan. In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said in a case **where a Jew is standing over him** and ensuring that he slaughters properly; **but** if the Jew merely **exits and enters** and does not have a constant presence, the Samaritan **may not slaughter** the animal.


###### Chullin 3a:4
[Chullin 3a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3a:4)

וְאִם שָׁחַט, חוֹתֵךְ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. אֲכָלוֹ – מוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ, לֹא אֲכָלוֹ – אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the Samaritan **slaughtered** the animal without supervision, the Jew **cuts an olive-bulk of meat** from the slaughtered animal **and gives it to** the Samaritan to eat. If the Samaritan **ate it,** it is **permitted** for the Jew **to eat** meat **from** what the Samaritan **slaughtered.** Since Samaritans are meticulous with regard to the meat that they eat and eat meat only from an animal that was slaughtered properly, the Jew may partake of the meat. But if the Samaritan **did not eat** the meat, there is concern that the animal was not slaughtered properly, and it is **prohibited to eat from** what the Samaritan **slaughtered.**


###### Chullin 3a:5
[Chullin 3a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3a:5)

חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, דַּאֲפִילּוּ דִּיעֲבַד נָמֵי לָא, שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁהוּ, שֶׁמָּא יִדְרְסוּ, וְשֶׁמָּא יַחֲלִידוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And it teaches: This is the *halakha* with regard to all people **except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, who,** even if they slaughtered only non-sacred animals, their slaughter is **not** valid **even after the fact.** The reason the Sages deemed such slaughter not valid is **lest** people in these categories **interrupt** the slaughter, **lest they press** the knife in the course of slaughter, **and lest they conceal** the knife beneath the windpipe or the gullet in the course of an inverted slaughter.


###### Chullin 3a:6
[Chullin 3a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3a:6)

וְכוּלָּן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ, אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן – עֲלַהּ קָאֵי, ״וְאִם שָׁחֲטוּ״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the clause in the mishna that follows: **And any of them who slaughtered** an animal and others see and supervise them, their slaughter is valid, **to which** case in the mishna is it referring? **If we say** that the reference is to the case **of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor,** since that is the *halakha* to which **it stands adjacent,** the *tanna* **should have** formulated the phrase: **And if they slaughtered,** instead of: And any of them who slaughtered.


###### Chullin 3a:7
[Chullin 3a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3a:7)

אֶלָּא, אַכּוּתִי – הָא אָמְרַתְּ: כְּשֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו שָׁחֵיט אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** perhaps the reference is to the case **of a Samaritan** who slaughters. The Gemara rejects that possibility. **But didn’t you say** in that case: **When a Jew is standing over him,** a Samaritan may **slaughter even *ab initio*?** The Gemara concedes that the formulation of the mishna: And any of them who slaughtered, is **difficult** according to this explanation of the mishna.


###### Chullin 3a:8
[Chullin 3a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3a:8)

אָמַר רָבָא: וְיוֹצֵא וְנִכְנָס, לְכַתְּחִלָּה לָא? וְהָתְנַן: הַמַּנִּיחַ נָכְרִי בַּחֲנוּתוֹ וְיִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹצֵא וְנִכְנָס – מוּתָּר! הָתָם מִי קָתָנֵי ״מַנִּיחַ״? ״הַמַּנִּיחַ״ קָתָנֵי, דִּיעֲבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: And** in a case where a Jew **exits and enters,** is it **not** permitted for the Samaritan to slaughter the animal ***ab initio*? But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Avoda Zara* 69a): In the case of **one who leaves a gentile in his store** in which there is wine, **and a Jew exits and enters,** the wine is **permitted?** Just as there, the sporadic presence of the Jew is sufficient to ensure that the gentile will refrain from touching the wine, it should be sufficient in the case of a Samaritan who slaughters an animal as well. The Gemara rejects that proof. **There,** in the case of the store, **does** the *tanna* **teach: One leaves** a gentile *ab initio*? The *tanna* **teaches: One who leaves, after the fact.** Consequently, there is no proof from there that the Jew’s sporadic presence is sufficient to permit slaughter by a Samaritan *ab initio*.


###### Chullin 3a:9
[Chullin 3a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3a:9)

אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: אֵין הַשּׁוֹמֵר צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת יוֹשֵׁב וּמְשַׁמֵּר, אֶלָּא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיּוֹצֵא וְנִכְנָס – מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** proof can be cited **from** the mishna **here** (*Avoda Zara* 61a): In a case where barrels of wine belonging to a Jew are in the possession of a gentile, and a Jew was tasked with supervising those barrels, **the supervisor need not be** continuously **sitting and supervising** to ensure that the gentile does not touch the wine; **rather, even if** the supervisor **exits and enters,** the wine is **permitted.** This mishna clearly indicates that exiting and entering is sufficient even *ab initio*.


###### Chullin 3a:10
[Chullin 3a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3a:10)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ כּוּתִי. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? כְּשֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל יוֹצֵא וְנִכְנָס, אֲבָל בָּא וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט – חוֹתֵךְ כַּזַּיִת בָּשָׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ, אֲכָלוֹ – מוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ, לֹא אֲכָלוֹ – אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said** in resolution of the apparent contradiction similar to the resolution proposed by Abaye, that **this** is what the mishna **is teaching: Everyone slaughters, and even a Samaritan. In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said in a case **where a Jew exits and enters; but** if the Jew does not exit and enter and instead **came and found that** the Samaritan **slaughtered** the animal, the Jew **cuts an olive-bulk of meat** from the slaughtered animal **and gives it to** the Samaritan to eat. If the Samaritan **ate it,** it is **permitted** for the Jew **to eat** meat **from** what the Samaritan **slaughtered.** But if the Samaritan **did not eat** the meat, it is **prohibited to eat from** what the Samaritan **slaughtered.**


###### Chullin 3a:11
[Chullin 3a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3a:11)

חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, דַּאֲפִילּוּ דִּיעֲבַד נָמֵי לָא, שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁהוּ, וְשֶׁמָּא יִדְרְסוּ, וְשֶׁמָּא יַחֲלִידוּ. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ – אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן – עֲלַהּ קָאֵי, ״וְאִם שָׁחֲטוּ״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And it teaches: This is the *halakha* with regard to all people **except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, whose** slaughter is **not** valid **even after the fact.** The reason the Sages deemed such slaughter not valid is **lest** people in these categories **interrupt** the slaughter, **lest they press** the knife in the course of slaughter, **and lest they conceal** the knife beneath the windpipe or the gullet in the course of an inverted slaughter. The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the clause in the mishna that follows: **And any of them who slaughtered** an animal and others see and supervise them, their slaughter is valid, **to which** case in the mishna is this referring? **If we say** that the reference is to the case **of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor,** since that is the *halakha* to which **it stands adjacent,** the *tanna* **should have** formulated the phrase: **And if they slaughtered,** instead of: And any of them who slaughtered.


###### Chullin 3a:12
[Chullin 3a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3a:12)

אֶלָּא אַכּוּתִי? הָא אָמְרַתְּ: אֲפִילּוּ יוֹצֵא וְנִכְנָס שָׁחֵיט לְכַתְּחִלָּה! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** perhaps the reference is to the case **of a Samaritan** who slaughters. The Gemara rejects that possibility. **But didn’t you say** that if a Jew is present, then **even** if he **exits and enters** and does not have a constant presence, a Samaritan may **slaughter even *ab initio*?** The Gemara concedes that the formulation of the mishna: And any of them who slaughtered, is **difficult** according to this explanation of the mishna.


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

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: הָכִי קָתָנֵי – הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד. מְשׁוּמָּד לְמַאי? לֶאֱכוֹל נְבֵילוֹת לְתֵיאָבוֹן, וְכִדְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד אוֹכֵל נְבֵילוֹת לְתֵיאָבוֹן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Ashi said** in resolution of the apparent contradiction in the mishna that **this** is what the mishna **is teaching: Everyone slaughters, and even a Jewish transgressor [*meshummad*].** The Gemara asks: **A transgressor of what** sort? The Gemara answers: It is one whose transgression is **to eat** unslaughtered **animal carcasses to** satisfy his **appetite,** i.e., for his convenience. **And** the ruling of the mishna is **in accordance with** the statement **of Rava, as Rava says:** In the case of **a Jewish transgressor** whose transgression is that he **eats** unslaughtered **animal carcasses to** satisfy his **appetite,** if he seeks to slaughter an animal,