Chullin Daf 12 צולין דַף 12

A Baraisa states: הרי שמצא תרנגולת שחוטה בשוק – if one found a shechted hen in the marketplace, or he told his שליח to shecht his hen, and later found it shechted, חזקתו שחוט – it is presumed to be shechted properly. This proves that רוב מצויין אצל שחיטה מומחין הן – most people who are involved in shechitah are experts, so we assume that whoever shechted it was an expert. Rav Dimi bar Yosef asked Rav Nachman, if one told his שליח to shecht his animal for him, and found it shechted, what is the halachah? He answered that we assume it was properly shechted. He asked about one who told his שליח to separate terumah from his produce, and later found terumah set aside, and Rav Nachman answered that we do not assume terumah was separated. He explained that אין חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו – there is no presumption that a shaliach performs his assignment. However, regarding shechitah, whoever performed the shechitah is presumed to be an expert, since רוב מצויין אצל שחיטה מומחין הן. In contrast, terumah separated by anyone besides the שליח is ineffective.

The Mishnah taught that if a חרש, שוטה, or קטן shechted with a competent adult supervising, the shechitah is valid. Such people are incapable of specific intent to shecht, and are only capable of intent to simply cut. Therefore, the Gemara asks: who is the Tanna who holds דלא בעינן כוונה לשחיטה – that we do not require the slaughterer to have intent for shechitah? Rava says it is Rebbe Nassan, as a Baraisa teaches: זרק סכין לנועצה בכותל – if one threw a knife to plunge it into the wall, והלכה ושחטה כדרכה – and it went and shechted the correct way as it flew towards the wall, Rebbe Nassan says the shechitah is valid, but the Chochomim say it is invalid. The halachah follows Rebbe Nassan. The Gemara objects that shechitah requires מוליך ומביא – moving the knife back and forth, so the shechitah of the thrown knife should be invalid!? It answers that this knife actually did move back and forth (cutting the סימנים on the way to the wall, and again on the way back after bouncing off the wall).

Rebbe Yochanan asked: קטן יש לו מחשבה או אין לו מחשבה – does a minor have [halachically significant] thought or does he not have thought? For example, can he shecht korbanos, which requires specific intent? Rebbe Ami asked Rebbe Yochanan why he did not inquire if a קטן has "מעשה" – an act which corroborates his declared intent (e.g., if he said he would bring an עולה from the south side of the עזרה to the north side for its shechitah, and then did so, would that demonstrate legitimate intent for shechitah?). If Rebbe Yochanan did not ask about מעשה because a Mishnah teaches that קטנים are capable of מעשה, he should also not have asked about מחשבה, because the same Mishnah teaches they do not have מחשבה!? A Mishnah teaches that an acorn, pomegranate, or walnut which children hollowed out to measure sand in them, or fashioned to be a pan in a scale, are susceptible to tumah as utensils, מפני שיש להן מעשה – because [children] have the capability for a halachically significant act. ואין להן מחשבה – But they do not have the capability for halachically significant thought (i.e., if they declared they would use the shell as a כלי without fashioning it, it is not susceptible to tumah). Rebbe Yochanan’s inquiry is explained on the next Daf.