Wenn eine taubstumme Person, ein Idiot oder ein Minderjähriger in Gegenwart anderer [dh qualifizierter] Personen geschlachtet hat, müssen diese das Blut bedecken, jedoch nicht, wenn die oben genannten [disqualifizierten Personen] selbst geschlachtet haben; und damit auch in Bezug auf das Gebot, ein Tier und seine Jungen [am selben Tag] nicht zu schlachten: Wenn eine dieser [nicht qualifizierten Personen] eines der Tiere in Gegenwart von [qualifizierten] Personen geschlachtet hat, kann das andere Tier nicht nach ihnen geschlachtet werden [am selben Tag]. Wenn sie eines der Tiere selbst geschlachtet hatten, erlaubt R. Meir, das andere nach ihnen [am selben Tag] zu schlachten, aber die Weisen entscheiden, dass es verboten ist; sie geben jedoch zu, "dass eine Person, die es so geschlachtet hat, nicht der Bestrafung der vierzig Streifen unterworfen ist."
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
ואחרים רואין אותם – for in that manner, their ritual slaughter was fit.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
Introduction
In the beginning of the tractate we learned that if a deaf-mute, an imbecile (someone who is either crazy or perhaps retarded) or a minor slaughter an animal, the slaughtering is valid, but only if someone else watches them. If no one is watching, then we can assume that they did not slaughter in a valid fashion and the animal cannot be eaten. Our mishnah deals with the issues of covering the blood and the prohibition of “it and its young” when it comes to these three categories of people.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
חייבים לכסות – those others that see them are liable to cover [the blood] as it is taught further on. If he ritually slaughtered and did not cover [the blood] and another saw him, he is liable to cover [the blood].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
If a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor slaughtered while others watched them, one must cover up the blood; But if they were alone, they are exempt from covering it up. If other people watched the deaf-mute, imbecile or minor slaughter a wild animal or bird, and they saw that it was done in a valid fashion, then they are liable to cover up the blood. Since their slaughtering is valid, there would be no reason for them to be exempt from this obligation. However, if they were alone, then their slaughtering is not valid and they are exempt from covering up the blood, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
פטור מלכסות – Rabbi Meir said regarding it that he holds that the ritual slaughter of a deaf-mute, imbecile and–or a minor, among themselves, is complete carrion–not slaughtered according to the ritual rules, since most of their acts are corrupted. But the Rabbis dispute that of Rabbi Meir whether at the beginning [of the Mishnah] or at the end [of the Mishnah], but rather they observe him until he completes the matter and then return to dispute him, for the Rabbis think that it is doubtful carrion–not slaughtered according to the ritual rules, but not verifiable carrion. Therefore, regarding the matter of covering [the blood], they are obligated to cover [the blood], and they don’t do ritual slaughter after them of the animal and its young (see Leviticus 22:28), lest it is a good–valid ritual slaughtering. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Meir.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
Similarly for the matter of “it and its young”: if they slaughtered while others watched them, it is forbidden to slaughter after them [the mother/young], But if they were alone: Rabbi Meir permits to slaughter after them [the mother/young]. But the rabbis forbid it. They agree, that if a person did slaughter [after them], he has not incurred forty lashes. As is the rule with the covering of the blood, if other people see a deaf-mute, imbecile or minor slaughter an animal it is forbidden to slaughter the mother/offspring because the first animal was slaughtered in a valid fashion. If they were alone, then Rabbi Meir holds that the second animal (the mother/offspring) can be slaughtered because we can assume that the first one was not slaughtered properly. However, the other rabbis hold that one should not slaughter the second animal lest the first animal was properly slaughtered. According to the Talmud, the other rabbis disagree with the halakhah in section one as well they must cover the blood because the slaughtering might have been done in a proper fashion. In other words, when a deaf-mute, imbecile or minor slaughters an animal without witnesses, we can’t eat the animal lest it not be valid. However, we have to also take into consideration that it was slaughtered correctly and therefore the blood must be covered and it is forbidden to slaughter the mother/offspring on the same day. While the rabbis say that one should not slaughter the second animal, if one does, he is not liable for the forty lashes because it is not certain that the first animal was slaughtered properly. In order for someone to incur a punishment, it must be certain that he transgressed, and in this case there is no way to ascertain whether the first animal was slaughtered properly.
