| 13a. ואין להן מחשבה,אמר ליה מחשבה גרידתא לא קא מיבעיא ליה כי קא מיבעיא ליה מחשבתו ניכרת מתוך מעשיו,כגון דהוה קיימא עולה בדרום ואתיוה בצפון ושחטה מאי מדאתייא בצפון ושחט איכוין לה או דילמא מקום הוא דלא איתרמי ליה,הא נמי אמרה רבי יוחנן חדא זימנא דתנן המעלה פירותיו לגג מפני הכנימה וירד עליהם טל אינן בכי יותן ואם נתכוין לכך הרי הן בכי יותן,העלום חרש שוטה וקטן אף על פי שנתכוונו לכך אינן בכי יותן מפני שיש להן מעשה ואין להן מחשבה,וא"ר יוחנן ל"ש אלא שלא היפך בהן אבל היפך בהן הרי זה בכי יותן,הכי קא מיבעיא ליה דאורייתא או דרבנן,רב נחמן בר יצחק מתני הכי א"ר חייא בר אבא בעי רבי יוחנן קטן יש לו מעשה או אין לו מעשה,אמר ליה רבי אמי ותיבעי ליה מחשבה מאי שנא מחשבה דלא קא מיבעיא ליה דתנן אין להן מחשבה מעשה נמי לא תיבעי ליה דתנן יש להן מעשה,הכי קא מיבעיא ליה דאורייתא או דרבנן ופשיט יש להן מעשה ואפילו מדאורייתא אין להן מחשבה ואפי' מדרבנן מחשבתו ניכרת מתוך מעשיו מדאורייתא אין לו מדרבנן יש לו,בעא מיניה שמואל מרב הונא מנין למתעסק בקדשים שהוא פסול שנאמר (ויקרא א, ה) ושחט את בן הבקר שתהא שחיטה לשם בן בקר אמר לו זו בידינו היא לעכב מנין (ת"ל) (ויקרא יט, ה) לרצונכם תזבחוהו לדעתכם זבוחו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big שחיטת עובד כוכבים נבלה ומטמאה במשא:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big נבלה אין איסור הנאה לא מאן תנא א"ר חייא ברבי אבא א"ר יוחנן דלא כרבי אליעזר דאי ר"א האמר סתם מחשבת עובד כוכבים לעבודת כוכבים,רבי אמי אמר הכי קתני שחיטת עובד כוכבים נבלה הא דמין לעבודת כוכבים תנינא להא דת"ר שחיטת מין לעבודת כוכבים פיתו פת כותי יינו יין נסך ספריו ספרי קוסמין פירותיו טבלין וי"א אף | 13a. bbut they do not havethe capacity to effect a halakhic status by means of bthought. /b,Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba bsaid toRabbi Ami: With regard to a case of effecting a halakhic status by means of bthought alone,Rabbi Yoḥa bdoes not raise a dilemma. When he raises a dilemma,it is with regard to a case where bhis thought is discernible from his actions. /b, bFor example,in a case bwherean animal that is brought as ba burnt offering was standing in the southof the Temple courtyard banda minor btook it to the northof the courtyard, the designated place for its slaughter, band slaughtered itthere, bwhatis the ihalakha /i? Can one conclude bfromthe fact bthat he took it to the north and slaughteredit there that bhe hadthe bintent toslaughter the animal for the sake of a burnt offering; bor perhapshe moved the animal to the north because ba place did not happento be available bfor himin the south?,Rabbi Ami asked: But with regard to bthismatter, btoo, Rabbi Yoḥaalready bsaida conclusive resolution bone time, as we learnedin a mishna ( iMakhshirin6:1): In the case of bone who takes his produce up to the roofto protect it bfrom insects, and dew fell upon it,the produce bis not inthe category of the verse: “But bwhenwater bis placedupon the seed” (Leviticus 11:38), from which it is derived that produce becomes susceptible to ritual impurity only if it is dampened by one of seven liquids and its owner was agreeable to its dampening. bAnd ifafter taking the produce up to the roof bhe intendedthat the produce would be dampened by dew, the produce bis inthe category of the verse “But bwhenwater bis placedupon the seed.”,That mishna continues: In a case where ba deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor tookthe produce bupto the roof, beven if they intendedthat the produce would be dampened by dew, the produce bis not inthe category of the verse “But bwhenwater bis placedupon the seed” bdue tothe fact bthat they havethe capacity to perform ban action but they do not havethe capacity for halakhically effective bthought. /b, bAnd Rabbi Yoḥa says:The itanna btaughtthis ihalakha bonlyin a case bwherethe minor bdid not turn them over. Butif bhe turned them over,indicating that he wants them to be dampened by the dew, the produce bis inthe category of the verse “But bwhenwater bis placedupon the seed.” Evidently, Rabbi Yoḥa rules that when the intention of a minor is apparent from his actions, it is halakhically effective.,Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami that bthisis bthe dilemmathat Rabbi Yoḥa braises:In a case where the intent of a minor is clear from his actions, is the fact that his thought is effective bby Torah law or by rabbinic law?That is one version of the exchange between Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Ami., bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak teachestheir exchange in bthismanner. bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa raises a dilemma:With regard to ba minor, does he havethe capacity to perform ban actionthat is halakhically effective bor does he not havethe capacity to perform such ban action? /b, bRabbi Ami said toRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: bAnd letRabbi Yoḥa braise this dilemmawith regard to the bthoughtof a minor. bWhat is differentabout the bthoughtof a minor bthatRabbi Yoḥa bdoes not raise a dilemma?Is it due to the fact bthat we learnedin a mishna ( iKelim17:15): A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor bdo not havethe capacity for effective bthought?With regard to baction as well let him not raise this dilemma, as we learnedin the same mishna: bThey havethe capacity to perform ban action. /b,Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami that bthisis bthe dilemmathat Rabbi Yoḥa braises:Is the fact that their actions are effective and their thought is ineffective bby Torah law,and a minor’s action would consequently be effective even with regard to the sacrifice of a burnt offering, boris this fact bby rabbinic lawand it is merely a stringency? bAndRabbi Yoḥa bresolvesthe dilemma: bThey havethe capacity to perform ban action andit is effective, beven by Torah law.But bthey do not havethe capacity for effective bthought, even by rabbinic law.Nevertheless, in a case where bhis thought is apparent from his actions, by Torah law he does not haveeffective thought, and bby rabbinic law he haseffective thought.,§ bShmuel asked Rav Huna: From whereis it derived with regard bto one who acts unawares inthe slaughter of bsacrificialanimals, i.e., he slaughtered without intending to perform the act of slaughter at all, bthatthe offering bis disqualified?Rav Huna said to him that it is derived from a verse, bas it is stated: “And he shall slaughter the young bull”(Leviticus 1:5), indicating bthat the slaughter must be for the sake of a young bull,i.e., knowing that he is performing an act of slaughter. Shmuel bsaid tohim: bwereceived bthisas an established ihalakhaalready bthatone must have intent to slaughter the animal iab initio /i. But bfrom whereis it derived that intent to slaughter is bindispensableeven after the fact? It is derived from a verse, as bthe verse states: “You shall slaughter it to your will”(Leviticus 19:5), indicating: bSlaughterthe animal bwith your intent,i.e., in the form of a purposeful action., strongMISHNA: /strong bSlaughterperformed by ba gentilerenders the animal ban unslaughtered carcass, andthe carcass bimparts ritual impurity through carrying. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The slaughter renders the animal ban unslaughtered carcass, yes; an item from whichderiving bbenefit is prohibited, no. Whois the itannawho btaughtthe mishna? bRabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rabbi Abba, saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: It is not in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Eliezer, as, ifit were in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Eliezer, doesn’t he say: The unspecified thought of a gentile is for idol worship. /b, bRabbi Ami saidthat bthisis what the mishna bis teaching: Slaughterperformed by ba gentilerenders the animal ban unslaughtered carcass, butslaughter performed bby a hereticis bforthe sake of bidol worship.The Gemara notes: bWe learnfrom an inference in the mishna bthat which the Sages taughtexplictly in a ibaraita /i: bSlaughterperformed by ba hereticis bforthe sake of bidol worshipand deriving benefit from it is prohibited, the halakhic status of bhis breadis that of bthe bread of a Samaritan,the status of bhis wineis that of bwineused for ba libationin idol worship, bhissacred bscrollsthat he writes bare the scrolls of sorcerersand it is a mitzva to burn them, bhis produce is untithed produceeven if he separated iterumaand tithes, band some say: Even /b |
