## Chullin Daf 5a

###### Chullin 5a:1
[Chullin 5a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/5a:1)

לָא הֲוָה מְפַלֵּיג נַפְשֵׁיהּ מִינֵּיהּ, מְנָלַן? אִילֵּימָא מִדִּכְתִיב ״כָּמוֹנִי כָמוֹךָ כְּעַמִּי כְעַמֶּךָ״, אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה ״כְּסוּסַי כְּסוּסֶיךָ״ הָכִי נָמֵי? אֶלָּא מָה דְּהָוֵי אַסּוּסֶיךָ תֶּהֱוֵי אַסּוּסַי, הָכִי נָמֵי מַאי דְּהָוֵי עֲלָךְ וְעִילָּוֵי עַמָּךְ תֶּיהֱוֵי עֲלַי וְעִילָּוֵי עַמִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that suggestion: Jehoshaphat **would not have separated himself from** Ahab to eat and drink by himself, as he relied on him completely. **From where do we** derive this? **If we say** that it is derived **from** that **which is written** that Jehoshaphat said to Ahab: **“I am as you are, my people as your people”** (I Kings 22:4), i.e., I am equally reliable, this is difficult, as, **if that is so,** then when Jehoshaphat said at the conclusion of that verse: **“My horses as your horses,”** can this **also** be referring to reliability? **Rather,** Jehoshaphat’s intention was: **That which will befall your horses will befall my horses; so too, that which will befall you and your people will befall me and my people.**


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

אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: ״וּמֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוֹשָׁפָט מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה יֹשְׁבִים אִישׁ עַל כִּסְאוֹ מְלֻבָּשִׁים בְּגָדִים בְּגֹרֶן פֶּתַח שַׁעַר שֹׁמְרוֹן״. מַאי גּוֹרֶן? אִילֵּימָא גּוֹרֶן מַמָּשׁ, אַטּוּ שַׁעַר שׁוֹמְרוֹן גּוֹרֶן הֲוָה? אֶלָּא כִּי גוֹרֶן, דִּתְנַן: סַנְהֶדְרִין הָיְתָה כַּחֲצִי גוֹרֶן עֲגוּלָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ רוֹאִין זֶה אֶת זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is derived that Jehoshaphat relied upon Ahab **from here: “And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat, king of Judea, sat each on his throne, arrayed in their robes, in a threshing floor, at the entrance of the gate of Samaria”** (I Kings 22:10). The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of the term **threshing floor** in this context? **If we say** that it was **an actual threshing floor; is that to say** that **the gate of Samaria was a threshing floor?** Typically, the gate of a city was the place of assembly for the city’s judges and elders, not a threshing floor. **Rather,** they were sitting in a configuration **like** that of a circular **threshing floor,** i.e., facing each other in a display of amity, **as we learned** in a mishna (*Sanhedrin* 36b): **A Sanhedrin was** arranged in the same layout **as half of a circular threshing floor, so that** the judges **would see each other.** This verse demonstrates that Jehoshaphat deliberated with Ahab and relied on his judgment.


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

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ, ״וְהָעֹרְבִים מְבִיאִים לוֹ לֶחֶם וּבָשָׂר בַּבֹּקֶר וְלֶחֶם וּבָשָׂר בָּעָרֶב״, וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מִבֵּי טַבָּחֵי דְאַחְאָב. עַל פִּי הַדִּבּוּר שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the verse written with regard to Elijah **supports** the opinion of Rav Anan. The verse states: **“And the ravens [*orevim*] brought him bread and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the evening”** (I Kings 17:6); **and Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said:** They would bring the meat **from the slaughterhouse of Ahab.** Clearly, Elijah would not have eaten the meat if Ahab’s slaughter was not valid. The Gemara responds: Since he ate the meat **according to the word** of God, the case of Elijah **is different,** and no proof may be cited from there.


###### Chullin 5a:4
[Chullin 5a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/5a:4)

מַאי עוֹרְבִים? אָמַר רָבִינָא: עוֹרְבִים מַמָּשׁ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי: וְדִלְמָא תְּרֵי גַבְרֵי דְּהָוֵי שְׁמַיְיהוּ עוֹרְבִים! מִי לָא כְּתִיב: ״וַיַּהַרְגוּ אֶת עוֹרֵב בְּצוּר עוֹרֵב וְאֶת זְאֵב וְגוֹ׳״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִיתְרְמַאי מִילְּתָא דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ הֲוָה שְׁמַיְיהוּ עוֹרְבִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of ***orevim*** in this context? **Ravina said:** They were **actual ravens. Rav Adda bar Minyumi said to him: And perhaps** they were **two men whose names were Oreb? Isn’t it written: “And they slew Oreb at the Rock of Oreb, and Zeeb** they slew at the winepress of Zeeb” (Judges 7:25), indicating that Oreb is a person’s name? Ravina **said to him:** Did **the matter** just so **happen that the names of both of** the people supplying Elijah with food **were Oreb?** The improbability of this occurrence indicates that they were actual ravens.


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

וְדִלְמָא עַל שֵׁם מְקוֹמָן! מִי לָא כְּתִיב: ״וַאֲרָם יָצְאוּ גְדוּדִים וַיִּשְׁבּוּ מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נַעֲרָה קְטַנָּה״, וְקַשְׁיָא לַן: קָרֵי לַהּ ״נַעֲרָה״ וְקָרֵי לַהּ ״קְטַנָּה״, וְאָמַר רַבִּי פְּדָת: קְטַנָּה דְּמִן נְעוֹרָן! אִם כֵּן ״עוֹרְבִיִּים״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And perhaps** they are called *orevim* **after the name of their place** of origin. **Isn’t it written: “And the Arameans had gone out in bands, and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a minor young woman [*na’ara ketana*]”** (II Kings 5:2)? **And** it is **difficult for us** to understand why the verse **calls her a young woman and** also **calls her a minor,** which are two different stages in a girl’s development. **And Rabbi Pedat said:** She was **a minor girl who was from** a place called **Naaran.** Perhaps in the case of Elijah they were two people from a place called Oreb. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: **If so, Orebites [*oreviyyim*] should have** been written in the verse.


###### Chullin 5a:6
[Chullin 5a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/5a:6)

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ כּוּתִי, וַאֲפִילּוּ עָרֵל, וַאֲפִילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד. הַאי עָרֵל הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא שֶׁמֵּתוּ אֶחָיו מֵחֲמַת מִילָּה – הַאי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְעַלְּיָא הוּא! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא מְשׁוּמָּד לַעֲרֵלוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Let us say** that the following *baraita* **supports** the opinion of Rav Anan, who says that it is permitted to eat from the slaughter of a Jew who is a transgressor with regard to idol worship: **Everyone slaughters, and even a Samaritan, and even an uncircumcised** man, **and even a Jewish transgressor.** The Gemara analyzes the *baraita*: **This uncircumcised** man, **what are the circumstances? If we say** that he is an uncircumcised man **whose brothers died due to circumcision** and the concern is that he might suffer a similar fate, clearly one may eat from what he slaughters, as **he is a full-fledged Jew** and not a transgressor at all. **Rather,** it is **obvious** that he is **a transgressor with regard to** remaining **uncircumcised,** as he refuses to be circumcised.


###### Chullin 5a:7
[Chullin 5a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/5a:7)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וַאֲפִילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי מְשׁוּמָּד לְדָבָר אֶחָד – הַיְינוּ מְשׁוּמָּד לַעֲרֵלוּת, אֶלָּא לָאו מְשׁוּמָּד לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְכִדְרַב עָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Say the latter clause** of the *baraita*: **And even a Jewish transgressor. What are the circumstances? If he is a transgressor with regard to one matter, that is** identical to the case of **a transgressor with regard to** remaining **uncircumcised. Rather, is it not** that he is **a transgressor with regard to idol worship, and** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Anan?**


###### Chullin 5a:8
[Chullin 5a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/5a:8)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימַר לָךְ: מְשׁוּמָּד לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לָא, דְּאָמַר מָר: חֲמוּרָה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, שֶׁכׇּל הַכּוֹפֵר בָּהּ כְּמוֹדֶה בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that proof: **No, actually I will say to you** that **a transgressor with regard to idol worship** may **not** slaughter, **as the Master said: Idol worship is a severe** transgression, **as** with regard to **anyone who denies it,** it is **as** though **he acknowledges** his acceptance of **the entire Torah.** Conversely, with regard to one who accepts idolatry, it is as though he denies the entire Torah. Therefore, his halakhic status is that of a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah, and his slaughter is not valid.


###### Chullin 5a:9
[Chullin 5a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/5a:9)

אֶלָּא מְשׁוּמָּד לְאוֹתוֹ דָּבָר, וְכִדְרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the transgressor in the latter clause of the *baraita* is **a transgressor concerning the same matter** of eating unslaughtered carcasses, **and** it is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava,** who said that one may rely on the slaughter of a transgressor with regard to eating unslaughtered animal carcasses to satisfy his appetite even *ab initio*.


###### Chullin 5a:10
[Chullin 5a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/5a:10)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״מִכֶּם״ – וְלֹא כּוּלְּכֶם, לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמְשׁוּמָּד. ״מִכֶּם״ – בָּכֶם חִלַּקְתִּי וְלֹא בְּאוּמּוֹת. ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״ – לְהָבִיא בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁדּוֹמִים לִבְהֵמָה. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: מְקַבְּלִין קׇרְבְּנוֹת מִפּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ בָּהֶן בִּתְשׁוּבָה, חוּץ מִן הַמְשׁוּמָּד, וּמְנַסֵּךְ אֶת הַיַּיִן, וּמְחַלֵּל שַׁבָּתוֹת בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinion of Rav Anan from that which is taught in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: “When any man of you brings an offering unto the Lord, from the animal” (Leviticus 1:2). The *tanna* infers: **“Of you,”** indicating: **But not all of you.** This serves **to exclude the transgressor,** from whom an offering is not accepted. The *tanna* continues: The term **“of you”** is also interpreted to mean that **I distinguished among you and not among the nations.** Therefore, a gentile may bring an offering even if he is an idol worshipper. The expression **“from the animal”** serves **to include people who are similar to an animal** in that they do not recognize God. **From here,** the Sages **stated: One accepts offerings from Jewish transgressors so that they will consequently repent, except for the transgressor, one who pours wine as a libation** to idolatry, **and one who desecrates Shabbat in public [*befarhesya*].**


###### Chullin 5a:11
[Chullin 5a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/5a:11)

הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ: ״מִכֶּם״ – וְלֹא כּוּלְּכֶם, לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמְשׁוּמָּד, וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: מְקַבְּלִין קׇרְבָּנוֹת מִפּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This** *baraita* **itself** is **difficult.** Initially, **you said: “Of you,”** indicating: **But not all of you.** This serves **to exclude the transgressor,** from whom an offering is not accepted. **And then** the *tanna* **teaches: One accepts offerings from Jewish transgressors.**


###### Chullin 5a:12
[Chullin 5a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/5a:12)

הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, רֵישָׁא – מְשׁוּמָּד לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, מְצִיעֲתָא – מְשׁוּמָּד לְדָבָר אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This** is **not difficult. The first clause** states that an offering is not accepted from **a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah. The middle clause** states that one accepts an offering from **a transgressor with regard to one matter.**


###### Chullin 5a:13
[Chullin 5a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/5a:13)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: חוּץ מִן הַמְשׁוּמָּד וּמְנַסֵּךְ אֶת הַיַּיִן וּמְחַלֵּל שַׁבָּת בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא. הַאי מְשׁוּמָּד הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי מְשׁוּמָּד לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ – הַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא, וְאִי מְשׁוּמָּד לְדָבָר אֶחָד – קַשְׁיָא מְצִיעֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **Say the last clause: Except for the transgressor, and one who pours wine as a libation** to idolatry, **and one who desecrates Shabbat in public.** With regard to **this transgressor** in the last clause, **what are the circumstances? If** the reference is to **a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah, that is** identical to **the first clause:** Of you, and not all of you, to exclude the transgressor. **And if** the reference is to **a transgressor with regard to one matter, the middle clause** is **difficult,** as it is stated there that one accepts an offering from a transgressor with regard to one matter.


###### Chullin 5a:14
[Chullin 5a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/5a:14)

אֶלָּא לָאו הָכִי קָאָמַר: חוּץ מִן הַמְשׁוּמָּד לְנַסֵּךְ אֶת הַיַּיִן וּלְחַלֵּל שַׁבָּתוֹת בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא, אַלְמָא מְשׁוּמָּד לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הָוֵה מְשׁוּמָּד לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב עָנָן, תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** that **this** is what the mishna **is saying** in the last clause: **Except for the transgressor to pour wine as a libation** to idolatry **or to desecrate Shabbat in public? Apparently, a transgressor with regard to idol worship is a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah, and** this *baraita* is **a refutation of** the opinion of **Rav Anan.** The Gemara concludes: It is indeed **a conclusive refutation.**


###### Chullin 5a:15
[Chullin 5a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/5a:15)

וְהָא מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is this** *halakha* that one does not accept an offering from a transgressor **derived from** the verse cited **here? It is derived from** the verse written **there** with regard to a sin offering: