## Chullin Daf 3b

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

בּוֹדֵק סַכִּין וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ, וּמוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ. אֲבָל לֹא בָּדַק וְנָתַן לוֹ – לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט, וְאִם שָׁחַט – בּוֹדֵק סַכִּינוֹ אַחֲרָיו. נִמְצֵאת סַכִּינוֹ יָפָה – מוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**one examines a knife** to ensure that it is perfectly smooth with no nicks **and gives it to** the transgressor, **and** it is **permitted to eat from** what **he slaughtered. But if one did not examine** the knife **and give it to** the transgressor, the transgressor **may not slaughter** an animal *ab initio*. **And if** the transgressor **slaughtered** an animal, **one examines his knife after his** slaughter. If **his knife is found** to be **perfectly** smooth, it is **permitted to eat** meat **from** what **he slaughtered, and if not,** it is **prohibited to eat from** what **he slaughtered.**


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

חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, דַּאֲפִילּוּ דִּיעֲבַד נָמֵי לָא, שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁהוּ, שֶׁמָּא יִדְרְסוּ, וְשֶׁמָּא יַחֲלִידוּ. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ – אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן – עֲלַהּ קָאֵי, ״וְאִם שָׁחֲטוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי 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 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 3b:3
[Chullin 3b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3b:3)

אֶלָּא אַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד? אִי דְּבָדַק סַכִּין וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ, הָא אָמְרַתְּ שׁוֹחֵט לְכַתְּחִלָּה! אֶלָּא דְּלֹא בָּדַק. אִי דְּאִיתֵיהּ לְסַכִּין – לִיבְדְּקֵיהּ הַשְׁתָּא, וְאִי דְּלֵיתֵיהּ לְסַכִּין – כִּי אֲחֵרִים רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מַאי הָוֵי? דִּלְמָא בְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה שָׁחֵיט! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** perhaps the reference is to the case **of a Jewish transgressor** who slaughters. The Gemara asks: In what case? **If** it is a case **where one examined a knife and gave it to** the transgressor, **didn’t you say** in that case that the transgressor **may slaughter *ab initio*? Rather,** perhaps the reference is to a case **where one did not examine** the knife. **If** it is a case **where the knife is** available, **let him examine** the knife **now** to make sure that there are no nicks. **And if** it is a case **where the knife is not** available, then **when others see him** slaughter, **what of it?** How can one eat from what he slaughtered? **Perhaps he slaughtered the animal with a notched knife.** 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 3b:4
[Chullin 3b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3b:4)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: הָכִי קָתָנֵי – ״הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין״, הַכֹּל מוּמְחִין שׁוֹחֲטִין, מוּמְחִין וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מוּחְזָקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Ravina said** in resolution of the apparent contradiction in the mishna **that this** is what the mishna **is teaching: Everyone slaughters,** i.e., **everyone** who is **an expert** in the *halakhot* of ritual slaughter **slaughters;** all **experts** are qualified to slaughter, **and** this is the *halakha* **even if they are not established** as accustomed to slaughter with a steady hand and without fainting.


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

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין בּוֹ שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לוֹמַר הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה, אֲבָל אֵין יוֹדְעִין בּוֹ שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לוֹמַר הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה – לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט, וְאִם שָׁחַט – בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, אִם יוֹדֵעַ לוֹמַר הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה – מוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said in a case **where** people **know about him that he knows** and is able **to recite the *halakhot* of ritual slaughter. But if** people **do not know about him that he knows** and is able **to recite the *halakhot* of ritual slaughter, he may not slaughter** an animal *ab initio*. **And if he slaughtered** an animal, **one examines him; if he knows** and is able **to recite the *halakhot* of ritual slaughter** it is **permitted to eat** meat **from** what **he slaughtered, and if not,** it is **prohibited to eat from** what **he slaughtered.**


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

חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, דַּאֲפִילּוּ דִּיעֲבַד נָמֵי לָא, שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁהוּ, שֶׁמָּא 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 3b:7
[Chullin 3b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3b:7)

אֶלָּא, אַשֶּׁאֵין מוּמְחִין, בְּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ סַגִּי! דְּלֵיתֵיהּ לְקַמַּן דְּלִיבְדְּקֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** perhaps the reference is **to** a case **where they are not experts.** The Gemara rejects the possibility that they are not experts, as in that case, if **one examines him** after the slaughter to determine his expertise in the *halakhot* of ritual slaughter, it is **sufficient.** The Gemara answers: Supervision is necessary in the case where the one who slaughtered the animal **is not before us** so **that we** can **examine him.**


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

וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, רָבִינָא אָמַר: הָכִי קָתָנֵי – ״הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין״, הַכֹּל מוּחְזָקִין שׁוֹחֲטִין, מוּחְזָקִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מוּמְחִין. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ לְפָנֵינוּ שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים וְלֹא נִתְעַלֵּף, אֲבָל לֹא שָׁחַט לְפָנֵינוּ שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים – לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט, שֶׁמָּא יִתְעַלֵּף. וְאִם שָׁחַט וְאָמַר: ״בָּרִי לִי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְעַלַּפְתִּי״ – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those **who say** that **Ravina said** that **this** is what the mishna **is teaching: Everyone slaughters,** i.e., **everyone** who is **established** as accustomed to slaughter with a steady hand and without fainting **slaughters;** all those **established** concerning this are qualified to slaughter, **even** if it is **not** known if **they are experts. In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said in a case **where they slaughtered before us two or three times and did not faint. But if he did not slaughter before us two or three times he may not slaughter** an animal *ab initio*, **lest he faint. And if he slaughtered** an animal **and said: It is clear to me that I did not faint, his slaughter is valid.**


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

חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, דַּאֲפִילּוּ דִּיעֲבַד נָמֵי לָא, שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁהוּ, שֶׁמָּא יִדְרְסוּ, וְשֶׁמָּא יַחֲלִידוּ. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ – אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן עֲלַהּ קָאֵי, ״וְאִם שָׁחֲטוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי 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 3b:10
[Chullin 3b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3b:10)

אֶלָּא, אַשֶּׁאֵין מוּחְזָקִין, וְהָאָמְרַתְּ: בְּ״בָרִי לִי״ סַגִּי! דְּלֵיתֵיהּ קַמַּן דְּלִישַׁיְּילֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** perhaps the reference is **to** a case **where they are not established** as accustomed to slaughter with a steady hand and without fainting. The Gemara rejects that possibility, as in that case, **didn’t you say** that if one said after the slaughter: **It is clear to me** that I did not faint, it is **sufficient?** The Gemara answers: Supervision is necessary in the case **where** the one who slaughtered the animal **is not before us** so **that we** can **ask him** whether he fainted.


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

רָבִינָא וְרַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא, כְּאַבַּיֵּי וְרָבָא וְרַב אָשֵׁי לָא אָמְרִי, מִשּׁוּם דְּקַשְׁיָא לְהוּ ״וְכוּלָּן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara summarizes: **Ravina and Rabba bar Ulla did not say** a resolution to the apparent contradiction in the mishna **like** that of **Abaye, Rava, and Rav Ashi due to** the fact **that** the phrase in the mishna: **And any of them who slaughtered,** is **difficult for them.**


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

כּוּלְּהוּ כְּרַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא לָא אָמְרִי, לְהַךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ הָכָא עִיקָּר – אַדְּרַבָּה, הָתָם עִיקָּר, דִּבְקָדָשִׁים קָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**All of** the other *amora’im* **did not say** a resolution to the apparent contradiction in the mishna **like** that of **Rabba bar Ulla,** who interprets the mishna as referring to the case of a ritually impure person; **according to that version that you said:** The mishna **here** is the **primary** source for the *halakha* of a ritually impure person who slaughtered a sacrificial animal, the other *amora’im* reject this interpretation because, **on the contrary,** the mishna **there** is the **primary** source, **as it is standing in** tractate *Zevaḥim*, which deals with **sacrificial** animals.


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

לְהַךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: הָתָם עִיקָּר, וְהָכָא אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא טָמֵא בְּחוּלִּין תְּנָא נָמֵי טָמֵא בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין – טָמֵא בְּחוּלִּין גּוּפֵיהּ לָא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת קֹדֶשׁ לָאו כְּקֹדֶשׁ דָּמוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *amora’im* also reject the interpretation **according to that** other **version that you said:** The mishna **there** is the **primary** source, **and here, since** the *tanna* **taught** the case of **a ritually impure** person who slaughtered **non-sacred** animals, **he teaches** the case of **a ritually impure** person who slaughtered **sacrificial** animals **as well.** The reason is that it **was not necessary for** the *tanna* to teach the case **itself** of **a ritually impure** person who slaughtered **a non-sacred** animal, as in the opinion of the other *amora’im*, the halakhic status of **non-sacred** foods **that were prepared according to** the strictures of **sacrificial** food is **not like** that of **sacrificial** food, and it is permitted to render such food impure.


###### Chullin 3b:14
[Chullin 3b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3b:14)

כּוּלְּהוּ כְּרָבִינָא לָא אָמְרִי, לְהַךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר: מוּמְחִין אִין, שֶׁאֵין מוּמְחִין לָא – רוֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מוּמְחִין הֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**All of** the other *amora’im* **did not say** a resolution to the apparent contradiction in the mishna **like** that of **Ravina; according to that version that he said: Experts, yes,** may slaughter *ab initio*, but those **that** it is **not** known that they are **experts, no,** they may not slaughter *ab initio*, the other *amora’im* disagree because they hold that **the majority** of those **associated with slaughter are experts.** Therefore, even if it is not known whether they are experts, their slaughter is valid.


###### Chullin 3b:15
[Chullin 3b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3b:15)

לְהַךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר: מוּחְזָקִין אִין, שֶׁאֵין מוּחְזָקִין לָא – לְעִלּוֹפֵי לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**According to that version that** Ravina **said:** People who are **established** as accustomed to slaughter without fainting, **yes,** they may slaughter *ab initio*, but people who are **not established** as accustomed to slaughter without fainting, **no,** they may not slaughter *ab initio*, the other *amora’im* disagree because they hold that **we are not concerned for** the possibility of **fainting.**


###### Chullin 3b:16
[Chullin 3b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3b:16)

רָבָא לָא אָמַר כְּאַבַּיֵּי, כִּי קוּשְׁיֵיהּ. אַבָּיֵי לָא אָמַר כְּרָבָא, הָתָם לָא נָגַע, הָכָא נָגַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava did not say** a resolution **like** that of **Abaye,** that the mishna is referring to a Samaritan, **in accordance with** the **difficulty** that **he** raised from the *halakha* of wine belonging to a Jew to which a gentile has access. **Abaye did not say** a resolution **like** that of **Rava,** that a Samaritan may slaughter *ab initio* if a Jew enters and exits, because **there,** in the case of wine, the gentile **does not touch** the wine; therefore, it is sufficient if the Jew enters and exits. **Here,** in the case of slaughter, the Samaritan **touches** the animal in the course of slaughter, and he can disqualify the slaughter in an instant. Therefore, Abaye holds that it is insufficient for a Jew to enter and exit.


###### Chullin 3b:17
[Chullin 3b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3b:17)

רַב אָשֵׁי לָא אָמַר כְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ, קָסָבַר: כּוּתִים גֵּרֵי אֲרָיוֹת הֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi did not say** a resolution **like** that of **both of them,** Abaye and Rava, because **he holds: Samaritans are converts** who converted under duress due to the threat posed by **lions,** and their conversion is void; therefore, their halakhic status is that of a gentile, whose slaughter is not valid.


###### Chullin 3b:18
[Chullin 3b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3b:18)

אַבָּיֵי לָא אָמַר כְּרַב אָשֵׁי, לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ הָא דְּרָבָא. אֶלָּא רָבָא, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye did not say** a resolution **like** that of **Rav Ashi,** who interprets the mishna as referring to a Jewish transgressor whose transgression is that he eats unslaughtered animal carcasses to satisfy his appetite, because **he does not hold that which Rava** said, that such a transgressor may slaughter *ab initio* if his knife is examined beforehand by someone reliable. **But** as for **Rava, what is the reason** that **he did not say** a resolution **in accordance with his** own statement of ***halakha*** with regard to the slaughter of a transgressor and explain the mishna in the manner that Rav Ashi did?


###### Chullin 3b:19
[Chullin 3b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3b:19)

לִדְבָרָיו דְּאַבָּיֵי קָאָמַר, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: When Rava explained that the *tanna* in the mishna is referring to the slaughter of a Samaritan, **he stated** his opinion **in accordance with the statement of Abaye** in order to resolve the difficulty that Abaye raised; **but he himself does not hold accordingly.**


###### Chullin 3b:20
[Chullin 3b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3b:20)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁחִיטַת כּוּתִי מוּתֶּרֶת, בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? כְּשֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו, אֲבָל בָּא וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט – חוֹתֵךְ כַּזַּיִת וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ, אֲכָלוֹ – מוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **The slaughter** performed by **a Samaritan is permitted** *ab initio*. **In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said in a case **where** there is **a Jew standing over him** and supervising to ensure that the slaughter was performed properly. **But** if the Jew **came and found that** the Samaritan already **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 3b:21
[Chullin 3b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/3b:21)

כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, מָצָא בְּיָדוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Similarly,** if the Jew **found in the possession of** a Samaritan