Parallel
חולין 16
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Now is there not a contradiction here? — This proves that there is a distinction between that which was always attached and that which was first loose and subsequently attached. This is proved. The Master said: ‘If one slaughtered with a wheel, the slaughtering is valid’. But was it not taught [in another Baraitha] that the slaughtering is invalid? — It is no contradiction, for the former [Baraitha] deals with a potter's wheel, whereas the latter with a wheel turned by water. If you wish, however, I can say that in both [Baraithas] the wheel was turned by water, and yet there is no contradiction, for in the former case it was turned by the first onrush [of the water], whereas in the latter case it was turned by the subsequent onrush [of the water]. And this [distinction] is in agreement with R. Papa's statement, who said that if a man bound his neighbour and turned on to him a jet of water so that the victim died, he is culpable. What is the reason? — It [the water jet] is, as it were, his arrow wherewith the victim has been attacked. But this is [the law] only [in the case] where [the victim was killed] by the first onrush of the water, but not [where he was] killed by the subsequent onrush of the water, for then the act was but the indirect cause of the death. Rab was once sitting behind R. Hiyya whilst R. Hiyya was before Rabbi, when Rabbi, in session, expounded the following: Whence is it derived that the slaughtering must be performed with a detached implement? From this verse: And he took the knife to slay. Rab then asked R. Hiyya: What can he mean? — He replied: It is just idle talk! But does he not adduce a verse? — The verse merely serves to show the enthusiasm of Abraham. Raba stated: I have no doubt at all that in the law concerning idolatry, an object which was first loose and subsequently attached to the ground is regarded as detached. For Rab has ruled that if a man worshipped his own house, it thereby becomes forbidden [to be used for any purpose]. Now if you were to hold that such an object is to be regarded as attached, wherefore is the house forbidden? Is it not written, [Ye shall surely destroy. . . ] their gods upon the mountains, but not the mountains which are themselves their gods? In the law concerning the susceptibility of plants to become unclean, it is the subject of dispute between Tannaim. For we have learnt: If one inverted a dish and placed it upon a wall in order that the dish might be washed [by the rainwater, and the rainwater subsequently ran off the dish on to foodstuffs], the rule of ‘if water be put’ applies. If, however, it was placed in order that the wall might not be damaged, [and the rainwater ran off the dish on to the foodstuffs], the rule of ‘if water be put’ does not apply. Now is there not an inconsistency here? The first clause reads: ‘If. . . in order that the dish might be washed, the rule of "if water be put" applies’. It follows, however, that if one placed it in order that the wall might be washed, [and the rainwater subsequently fell on the foodstuffs], the rule of ‘if water be put’ does not apply. Yet the second clause reads: ‘If it was placed in order that the wall might not be damaged, the rule of "if water be put" does not apply’. It follows, however, that if it was placed in order that the wall might be washed [and the rainwater subsequently fell on the foodstuffs], the rule of ‘If water be put’ applies. — R. Eleazar replied. You must break up [this Mishnah], for he who taught the first clause could not have taught the second! R. Papa, however, answered: Indeed, the whole was taught by one Tanna, but the first clause deals with the wall of a cave, whereas the second clause deals with a built-up wall. Accordingly, the Mishnah is to be read thus: If one inverted a dish and placed it upon a wall in order that the dish might be washed, the rule of ‘if water be put’ applies; from which it follows that if one placed it in order that the wall might be washed, the rule of ‘if water be put’ does not apply. Now this is stated only in the case of a cave wall; but in the case of a built-up wall the law is: if one placed it in order that the wall might not be damaged, the rule of ‘if water be put’ does not apply; from which it follows that if one placed it in order that the wall might be washed, the rule of ‘if water be put’ applies. Raba now raised the question:
—
In the law concerning slaughtering, how are we to regard an implement which was first loose and subsequently attached? Come and hear: If there was a sharp stone jutting from the wall, or a reed growing of itself, and one slaughtered therewith, the slaughtering is invalid! — It is dealing here with the wall of a cave. Indeed the context proves this, for it puts ‘wall’ in juxtaposition with ‘a reed growing of itself’. This is proved. Come and hear: If one inserted a knife into a wall and slaughtered, the slaughtering is valid! — This case is different because one would not allow the knife to remain fixed [to the wall]. Come and hear: [If one slaughtered] with an implement that was attached to the ground, the slaughtering is valid! — perhaps this clause is defined by the subsequent clause [of this Baraitha, thus]: What is meant by ‘an implement that was attached’? A knife, which clearly would not remain fixed permanently. The Master said: ‘If one inserted a knife into a wall and slaughtered, the slaughtering is valid’. Said R. ‘Anan in the name of Samuel: This is the law provided the knife was on top and the throat of the animal below. If, however, the knife was below and the throat of the animal on top, [the slaughtering is invalid], for it is to be feared that the head might press down heavily upon the knife. But does not the aforementioned [Baraitha] read: ‘Whether the knife be below and the throat on top or the knife on top and the throat below’? — R. Zebid answered: The cases are to be interpreted each in its own way, thus: ‘Whether the knife be below and the throat on top’, where [the knife is] loose; ‘or the knife on top and the throat below’, where [the knife is] attached. R. Papa answered, [The Baraitha deals] with [the slaughtering of] a bird which is of light weight. R. Hisda stated in the name of R. Isaac, (others report that it was taught in a Baraitha) viz., Five rules have been laid down in connection with a reed haulm: (i) One must not slaughter with it, (ii) One must not perform circumcision with it. (iii) One must not cut flesh with it, (iv) One must not pick the teeth with it. (v) One must not cleanse oneself with it. ‘One must not slaughter with it’. But has it not been taught: One may slaughter with any implement, with flint, with glass or with a reed haulm? — R. Papa answered: [This Baraitha deals] with simuna of the marshes. ‘One must not cut flesh with it’. R. Papa used to cut with it the entrails of fish, for they are transparent. Rabbah son of R. Huna used to cut with it the flesh of chicken, for it is tender. ‘One must not cleanse oneself with it’. But is it not indeed [prohibited to do so] because of what a Master said viz., Whosoever cleanses himself [after an evacuation] with a material that is inflammable tears away the ligaments [of the anus]? R. Papa answered: We must say [that the Baraitha deals with] the cleansing of the opening of a wound. ALL MAY SLAUGHTER; AND AT ALL TIMES ONE MAY SLAUGHTER. ALL MAY SLAUGHTER, that is to say, everything must be slaughtered, including birds. AT ALL TIMES ONE MAY SLAUGHTER. Who is the Tanna who holds this view? Rabbah replied: It is R. Ishmael. For it has been taught: [It is written] When the Lord thy God shall enlarge thy border, as He hath promised thee, and thou shalt say: ‘I will eat flesh’ . . . This verse, says R. Ishmael, is stated specially in order to permit the Israelites to eat flesh at will. For in the beginning they were forbidden to eat flesh at will, but on entering the land of Israel they were permitted. But, now they are exiled, it might be said that they should revert to the former restriction; the Mishnah therefore teaches us: AT ALL TIMES ONE MAY SLAUGHTER. To this R. Joseph demurred, [In the first place,] why does the Mishnah read: AT ALL TIMES ONE MAY SLAUGHTER? It should read, ‘At all times one may slaughter and eat the flesh’! And in the second place, why were they forbidden in the beginning? [Surely] because they were near to the Sanctuary. And why were they permitted subsequently? [Similarly] because they were far away from the Sanctuary.
—