Rashi · Chulin — Comentadores do Talmud

Rashi · Chulin

Rashi · Chulin — Comentadores do Talmud no Beth HaMidrash: o texto hebraico e sua tradução em português, com Rashi e os grandes comentaristas. Grátis, online.

מתני' הכל שוחטין - כל היכא דתני הכל כולהו מייתי להו בשמעתא קמייתא דערכין ומפרש הכל לאתויי מאי. והכל שוחטין דמתניתין פליגי בה אמוראי בגמרא למר לאתויי טמא בחולין ולמר לאתויי כותי או מומר:'מתני MISHNA: Everyone slaughters - Everywhere that [the tanna] teaches "everyone," in each instance he brings the halacha from the beginning of tractate Arakhin and explains (Arakh. 2a:4), "Everyone [makes valuations], to include whom?" And "everyone slaughters," which is taught in the Mishna, the amoraim argue about it in the Gemara to [ultimately] say, "to include an impure person [slaughtering an animal] for mundane use," and to say, "to include a Samaritan or a heretic."

וכולן - בגמרא מפרש מאי וכולן:וכולן And all of them - In the Gemara it is explained who are "and all of them."

גמ' ושחיטתן כשרה דיעבד - בתמיה. וקשה רישא דמשמע דההוא דאתרבי מהכל לכתחלה אתרבי ואילו סיפא משמע דכי מרבינן מהכל דיעבד מרבינן לה אבל לכתחלה לא אתרבי והא ליכא למימר כולה מתניתין לכתחלה וחדא קתני דכיון דתנא הכל שוחטין פשיטא דכשרה:GEMARA: 'And their slaughter is valid' after the fact - This [should be read as] a question [rather than a statement] (i.e., "And [is the Mishna saying that] their slaughter is valid after the fact?"). And the opening clause ("Everyone may slaughter") is difficult, for it implies that whoever is included in "everyone" is included ab initio. But if the latter clause ("and their slaughter is valid") implies that it is extending [the same meaning of] "everyone," then it would be extending [the same] to [encompass] an after-the-fact [slaughter], but we do not extend [the authorization to perform an act] ab initio [to encompass what is only acceptable] after the fact. And thus we cannot say that our Mishnah withholds something ab initio and that [only] one [thing] is taught. For since it is taught "Everyone may slaughter," it would be obvious that [their slaughter is] valid! [This would render the latter clause redundant.]

וכל הכל לכתחלה הוא - דתקשה לך ולא תוכל לומר כולה דיעבד וה"ק הכל תורת שחיטה נוהגת בהן שאם שחטו אותן הפסולין דמתרבי תהא שחיטתן כשרה:וכל And does every [use of the word] "everyone" (הכל) indicate [that the action may be performed] ab initio? - [For if you take that position,] it would be difficult for you [to explain all similar instances where הכל is used]. Nor would you be able to say that every [instance indicates that the action is valid] after the fact. And this is what the tanna means to say: "Everyone as to whom the laws of slaughter apply [may slaughter]." For [otherwise], if those who were disqualified from slaughtering [nonetheless] slaughtered, it would come out that their slaughter was valid [after the fact]. [This result would be unacceptable.]

אלא הכל ממירים - מי מצית למימר לכתחלה יביא בהמת חולין אצל בהמת קדשים ויאמר זו תמורת זו. הכל דתמורה מפרש התם לאתויי יורש שממיר בקרבן אביו לאחר מיתת אביו דהתם תנן אין ממירין בשל אחרים:אלא Rather, "Everyone (הכל) may substitute [an unconsecrated animal for a consecrated animal]" (Tem. 1:1) - Can it be [seriously] claimed that this statement is [intended to authorize that] ab initio, one may bring an unconsecrated animal in place of a consecrated animal, and say, "This one is a substitute for that one"?! [Certainly not! Rather,] the "everyone" in [the tractate of] Temurah is explained over there (Tem. 2a:6-8) to include an heir who substitutes the offering of his [deceased] father, and it is taught over there, that one may not substitute with the offering of another.

Rashi on Chullin.2a