## Chullin Daf 41b

###### Chullin 41b:1
[Chullin 41b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:1)

יְחַקֶּה אֶת הַמִּינִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
appear to **emulate [*yeḥakkeh*] the heretics.**


###### Chullin 41b:2
[Chullin 41b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין לֹא לְתוֹךְ וְכוּ׳. מַאי שְׁנָא לְתוֹךְ יַמִּים דְּלָא? דְּאָמְרִי: לְשָׂרָא דְּיַמָּא קָא שָׁחֵיט. לְתוֹךְ עוּגָה שֶׁל מַיִם נָמֵי אָמְרִי: לְבָבוּאָה קָא שָׁחֵיט. אָמַר רָבָא: בַּעֲכוּרִים שָׁנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches: **One may not slaughter** an animal and have its blood flow, **neither into** seas, nor into rivers, nor into vessels, but one may slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a round excavation containing water. The Gemara asks: **What is different** about slaughter **into seas?** Is it **that** one may **not** perform it, **as** onlookers will **say: He is slaughtering to the angel of the sea?** If so, slaughter **into a round excavation** containing **water** should **also** be prohibited, as onlookers will **say: He is slaughtering to** his **reflection [*bavua*],** which is also similar to idolatry. **Rava said:** The *tanna’im* **taught** that *halakha* **in** the case of **murky** water, in which no reflection can be seen.


###### Chullin 41b:3
[Chullin 41b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:3)

אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין לַגּוּמָּא וְכוּ׳. וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין לַגּוּמָּא כְּלָל? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רֵישָׁא בְּגוּמָּא שֶׁבַּשּׁוּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: **One** may **not slaughter** an animal and have its blood flow **into a small hole** in the ground at all, but one may fashion a small hole inside his house so that the blood will enter into it. The Gemara asks: How is it permitted to slaughter and have the blood flow into a hole inside his house? **But didn’t you** initially **say** that **one may not slaughter** an animal and have its blood flow **into a small hole** in the ground **at all? Abaye said: The first clause** of the mishna, where there is a blanket prohibition against having the blood flow into a small hole, is referring **to a small hole that is in the marketplace.**


###### Chullin 41b:4
[Chullin 41b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא ״וּבַשּׁוּק לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה כֵּן״, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לָאו בְּשׁוּק עָסְקִינַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to him: But** isn’t it so that **from** the fact **that the latter clause teaches: And in the marketplace one may not do so, it may be inferred that** in **the first clause we are not dealing with the marketplace?**


###### Chullin 41b:5
[Chullin 41b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:5)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין לַגּוּמָּא כׇּל עִיקָּר, וְהָרוֹצֶה לְנַקֵּר חֲצֵרוֹ, כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? עוֹשֶׂה מָקוֹם חוּץ לַגּוּמָּא וְשׁוֹחֵט, וְדָם שׁוֹתֵת וְיוֹרֵד לַגּוּמָּא, וּבַשּׁוּק לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה כֵּן, שֶׁלֹּא יְחַקֶּה אֶת הַמִּינִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said** that **this** is what the mishna **is saying: One may not slaughter** an animal and have its blood flow **into a small hole** in the ground **at all. And one who wishes to clean his courtyard** and ensure that it will not be sullied in blood, **how does he do** so? **He fashions a place** with an incline or a furrow **outside the small hole, and slaughters** the animal there, **and the blood flows and descends into the hole. And in the marketplace one may not do so,** so **that** he will **not** appear to **emulate the heretics.**


###### Chullin 41b:6
[Chullin 41b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:6)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בִּסְפִינָה וְאֵין לוֹ מָקוֹם בַּסְּפִינָה לִשְׁחוֹט – מוֹצִיא יָדוֹ חוּץ לַסְּפִינָה וְשׁוֹחֵט, וְדָם שׁוֹתֵת וְיוֹרֵד עַל דּוֹפְנֵי הַסְּפִינָה, וְאֵין שׁוֹחֵט לַגּוּמָּא כׇּל עִיקָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava:** If one **was traveling on a ship and he has no place on the ship to slaughter** an animal, **he extends his hand** with a knife, holds the head of the animal **outside** the walls of **the ship, and slaughters** the animal there; **and the blood flows and descends** down **the sides of the ship.** He may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow directly into the sea. **And one may not slaughter** an animal and have its blood flow **into a small hole** in the ground **at all.**


###### Chullin 41b:7
[Chullin 41b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:7)

וְהָרוֹצֶה לְנַקֵּר חֲצֵרוֹ, כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? עוֹשֶׂה מָקוֹם חוּץ לַגּוּמָּא וְשׁוֹחֵט, וְדָם שׁוֹתֵת וְיוֹרֵד לַגּוּמָּא. וּבַשּׁוּק לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה כֵּן, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבְחֻקֹּתֵיהֶם לֹא תֵלֵכוּ״, וְאִם עָשָׂה כֵּן – צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה אַחֲרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And one who wishes to clean his courtyard** and ensure that it will not be sullied with blood, **how does he do** so? **He fashions a place** with an incline or a furrow **outside the small hole, and slaughters** the animal there, **and the blood flows and descends into the hole. And in the marketplace, one may not do so, as it is stated: “Neither shall you follow their statutes”** (Leviticus 18:3). **And if he did so, he requires examination after his** actions to ascertain whether he is a heretic.


###### Chullin 41b:8
[Chullin 41b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, לְשֵׁם זְבָחִים, לְשֵׁם אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח, לְשֵׁם תּוֹדָה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who slaughters** an animal and asserts that he is slaughtering it **for the sake of a burnt offering, for the sake of a peace offering, for the sake of a provisional guilt offering, for the sake of a Paschal offering,** or **for the sake of a thanks offering, his slaughter is not valid,** as it appears that he is consecrating animals and slaughtering sacrificial animals outside the Temple. **And Rabbi Shimon deems** his slaughter **valid.**


###### Chullin 41b:9
[Chullin 41b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:9)

שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין, אֶחָד לְשׁוּם אֶחָד מִכׇּל אֵלּוּ, וְאֶחָד לְשׁוּם דָּבָר כָּשֵׁר – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, לְשֵׁם אָשָׁם וַדַּאי, לְשֵׁם בְּכוֹר, לְשֵׁם מַעֲשֵׂר, לְשֵׁם תְּמוּרָה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If there were **two** people **grasping a knife** together **and slaughtering** an animal, **one** slaughtering **for the sake of one of all those** enumerated in the first clause of the mishna **and one** slaughtering **for the sake of a legitimate matter,** their **slaughter is not valid.** With regard to **one who slaughters** an animal **for the sake of a sin offering, for the sake of a guilt offering** for **a definite** transgression, **for the sake of** the offering of **a firstborn, for the sake of** the offering of animal **tithe,** or **for the sake of a substitute** for a sacrificial animal, **his slaughter is valid.** All of these offerings may be brought only as obligations and not as gifts. Therefore, there is no concern that he consecrated the animals.


###### Chullin 41b:10
[Chullin 41b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:10)

זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּידָּר וְנִידָּב – הַשּׁוֹחֵט לִשְׁמוֹ אָסוּר, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נִידָּר וְנִידָּב – הַשּׁוֹחֵט לִשְׁמוֹ כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This is the principle:** For **any item,** i.e., offering, **which** is consecrated as a voluntary **vow or gift,** in the case of **one who slaughters for its sake** the animal is **forbidden. And** for any offering **that is not** consecrated as a voluntary **vow or gift** but is an obligation that is incumbent upon him, in the case of **one who slaughters for its sake** the animal is **permitted.**


###### Chullin 41b:11
[Chullin 41b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:11)

**גְּמָ׳** הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה. אָשָׁם תָּלוּי בַּר נִידָּר וְנִידָּב הוּא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם אָשָׁם תָּלוּי בְּכׇל יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches: In the case of **one who slaughters** an animal and asserts that he is slaughtering it **for the sake of a burnt offering,** for the sake of a peace offering, for the sake of a provisional guilt offering, for the sake of a Paschal offering, or for the sake of a thanks offering, the slaughter is not valid. This is because one who slaughters for the sake of any type of offering that is consecrated as a vow or as a gift renders the animal forbidden. The Gemara asks: **Is a provisional guilt offering fit** to be consecrated as **a vow or** as **a gift?** A provisional guilt offering is brought only when one is obligated to do so due to uncertainty whether or not he is liable to bring a sin offering. **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *halakha* in the mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, who says** in a mishna (*Karetot* 25a): **A person donates a provisional guilt offering every day** if he chooses, due to concern that perhaps he violated a prohibition.


###### Chullin 41b:12
[Chullin 41b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:12)

פֶּסַח בַּר נִידָּב וְנִידָּר הוּא? זִמְנָא קְבִיעָא לֵיהּ! אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: שָׁאנֵי פֶּסַח, הוֹאִיל וְהַפְרָשָׁתוֹ כׇּל הַשָּׁנָה כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is a Paschal offering fit** to be consecrated as **a vow or** as **a gift? The time is fixed for its** offering on Passover eve, when bringing it is an obligation, and it may not be brought on any other day. **Rabbi Oshaya said: The Paschal offering is different, since** although the date for bringing and slaughtering it is the fourteenth of Nisan, **its designation** can be performed **throughout the entire year.**


###### Chullin 41b:13
[Chullin 41b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא תְּמִימִים, אֲבָל בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין – מִידָּע יְדִיעַ. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין נָמֵי, זִימְנִין דִּרְמֵי לֵיהּ מִידֵּי אַמּוּמָא וְלָא יְדִיעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yannai says:** The Sages **taught** that slaughter of an animal for the sake of an offering is not valid **only** if the animals were **unblemished. But** with regard to animals with **blemishes,** the slaughterer **knows** that they are blemished and disqualified from sacrifice. Therefore, despite his declaration, there is no concern that his actual intent was to slaughter the animal for that purpose. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** Slaughter of an animal for the sake of an offering is not valid **even** if the animals were **blemished as well,** as there are **times that an item is cast over the blemish** and covers it, **and he does not know** that the animal is blemished.


###### Chullin 41b:14
[Chullin 41b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:14)

הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּיָּיב חַטָּאת, אֲבָל מְחוּיָּיב חַטָּאת – אֵימָא לְשׁוּם חַטָּאתוֹ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. וְהָא לָא קָאָמַר ״לְשֵׁם חַטָּאתִי״? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: בְּאוֹמֵר ״לְשֵׁם חַטָּאתִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: With regard to **one who slaughters** an animal **for the sake of a sin offering,** his slaughter is valid, as, since one cannot voluntarily contribute a sin offering, there is no concern that the onlookers will draw the wrong conclusion. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The Sages **taught** that slaughter of an animal for the sake of a sin offering is valid **only** with regard to a slaughterer **who is not liable** to bring **a sin offering. But** a slaughterer who knows that he is **liable** to bring **a sin offering,** his slaughter is not valid. **Say** that **he is performing** consecration and slaughter **for the sake of his sin offering.** The Gemara asks: **But** didn’t he say before the slaughter: For the sake of a sin offering, and **he did not say: For the sake of my sin offering?** Why, then, is that a concern? **Rabbi Abbahu said:** Indeed, the reference is to a case **where he says:** I am slaughtering this animal **for the sake of my sin offering.**


###### Chullin 41b:15
[Chullin 41b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:15)

לְשֵׁם תְּמוּרָה, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין לוֹ זֶבַח בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ זֶבַח בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ – אֵימָא אֲמוֹרֵי אֲמַיר בֵּיהּ. וְהָא לָא קָאָמַר ״לְשֵׁם תְּמוּרַת זִבְחִי״? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: בְּאוֹמֵר ״לְשֵׁם תְּמוּרַת זִבְחִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: With regard to one who slaughters **for the sake of a substitute** for a sacrificial animal, his slaughter is valid. **Rabbi Elazar says:** The Sages **taught** that the slaughter is valid **only** in a case **where he does not have** an animal consecrated as **an offering inside his house** for which it can be the substitute, **but** if **he has** an animal consecrated as **an offering in his house, say** that he is **substituting** this animal **for it,** and the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara asks: **But** didn’t he say before the slaughter: For the sake of a substitute for a sacrificial animal, and **he did not say: For the sake of a substitute for my** animal consecrated as an **offering?** Why, then, is that a concern? **Rabbi Abbahu said:** Indeed, the reference is to a case **where he says:** I am slaughtering this animal **for the sake of a substitute for my** animal consecrated as an **offering.**


###### Chullin 41b:16
[Chullin 41b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:16)

״זֶה הַכְּלָל״ לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי עוֹלַת נָזִיר, דְּמַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָא לָא נְדַר, אֵימַר נֶדֶר בְּצִינְעָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states that **this is the principle:** For any offering that is consecrated as a voluntary vow or gift, in the case of one who slaughters for its sake, the animal is forbidden. The Gemara asks: **What** case does this clause **add?** The list in the mishna appears to be comprehensive. The Gemara answers: The clause serves **to add** the **burnt offering of a nazirite. As, lest you say** there is no concern in that case, **as that** person did **not vow** to become a nazirite and could not possibly be obligated to bring that offering, therefore, the *tanna* teaches that there is a concern if he said he was slaughtering for the sake of the burnt offering of a nazirite. **Say** that perhaps **he vowed** to become a nazirite **in private,** and no one else was aware of it.


###### Chullin 41b:17
[Chullin 41b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:17)

וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נִידָּר וְנִידָּב, לְאֵתוֹיֵי עוֹלַת יוֹלֶדֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: What is added by the second half of the principle: **And** for any offering **that is not consecrated** as a voluntary **vow or** as **a gift,** in the case of one who slaughters for its sake the animal is permitted? The Gemara answers: It serves **to add the burnt offering of a woman after childbirth.** If one slaughters an animal for the sake of a burnt offering of a woman after childbirth, the slaughter is valid, as it is an obligation.


###### Chullin 41b:18
[Chullin 41b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:18)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אִשָּׁה, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ אִשָּׁה – אֵימַר לִשְׁמָהּ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. וְהָא לָא קָאָמַר ״לְשֵׁם עוֹלַת אִשְׁתִּי״? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: בְּאוֹמֵר ״לְשֵׁם עוֹלַת אִשְׁתִּי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar says:** The Sages **taught** that the slaughter is valid **only** in a case **where he does not have a wife. But** if **he has a wife, say that he performs** consecration and slaughter of the animal **for her sake** and therefore the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara asks: **But** didn’t he say before the slaughter: For the sake of the burnt offering of a woman after childbirth, and **he did not say: For the sake of the burnt offering of my wife** after childbirth? Why, then, is that a concern? **Rabbi Abbahu said:** Indeed, the reference is to a case **where he says:** I am slaughtering this animal **for the sake of the burnt offering of my wife** after childbirth.


###### Chullin 41b:19
[Chullin 41b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/41b:19)

פְּשִׁיטָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: This is **obvious.** Clearly, if he explicitly declared that the slaughter is for the sake of the burnt offering of his wife after childbirth the slaughter is not valid.