חולין 31 — parallel

31:1

that the feathers on the front of the neck were also cut. But what about covering the blood? And should you say that he covered the blood [where it fell on the ground, this is not sufficient], for R. Zera taught in the name of Rab: He who slaughters [a bird or a wild beast] must place dust underneath [the blood] and dust above it, for it is written. And he shall cover it with dust [be-’afar]; it does not say ‘afar’ but ‘be-’afar’. in order to teach that he who slaughters [a bird’ or a wild beast] must place dust underneath [the blood] and dust above it. — He prepared the soil of the entire valley [for this purpose]. IF, WHILST CUTTING, HE CUT THROUGH THE NECK WITH ONE STROKE . . . [PROVIDED THE KNIFE EXTENDED THE WIDTH OF A NECK]. R. Zera said: The width of a neck and also beyond the neck. The question was raised: [Does he mean] the width of a neck and another width of a neck beyond the neck, so that the knife is two necks long, or [does he mean to say] the width of a neck and also a little beyond the neck? — Come and hear: IF, WHILST CUTTING, HE CUT THROUGH TWO NECKS WITH ONE STROKE, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID PROVIDED THE KNIFE EXTENDED THE WIDTH OF A NECK. Now what is the meaning of THE WIDTH OF A NECK? Can it mean the width of a neck and no more? But if when slaughtering one animal we require the knife to be the width of a neck and also beyond the neck, can it possibly be said that when slaughtering two animals the width of a neck by itself is sufficient? Obviously, it must mean, the width of a neck beyond the two necks [which are being slaughtered]. This, therefore, proves that [R. Zera means] there must be the width of a neck beyond the neck. THESE PROVISIONS APPLY ONLY TO THE CASE WHERE HE MOVED THE KNIFE FORWARD AND NOT BACKWARD . . . HOWEVER SMALL IT WAS, EVEN IF IT WAS A LANCET, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID. R. Manasseh said: The Mishnah refers to a lancet which has no projections. R. Aha, the son of R. Awia, asked R. Manasseh: What is the law if one used a needle [for slaughtering]? — He replied: A needle rends [the flesh]. What if one used a shoemakers’ awl? — He replied: We have learnt it in our Mishnah: HOWEVER SMALL IT WAS. Surely this includes the shoemakers’ awl! — No, it refers to a lancet. But a lancet is expressly mentioned later? — No; it is merely explanatory; thus: HOWEVER SMALL IT WAS, namely: A LANCET. And this is logical too. For if you say that it includes a shoemakers’ awl, then [it will be asked]. If a shoemakers’ awl is allowed, what need is there to mention a lancet? [But this indeed would be no difficulty, because] it is necessary to mention a lancet; for you might have thought that the Rabbis would prohibit the use of a lancet even without projections as a precaution lest one use a lancet with projections. [The Mishnah] therefore teaches us [that this is not prohibited]. MISHNAH. IF A KNIFE FELL DOWN AND SLAUGHTERED [AN ANIMAL], EVEN THOUGH IT SLAUGHTERED IT IN THE PROPER WAY. THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, AND THOU SHALT SLAUGHTER . . . AND THOU SHALT EAT. THAT IS TO SAY, THAT WHICH THOU DOST SLAUGHTER MAYEST THOU EAT. GEMARA. Now this is so only because it fell down [of itself], but if one threw it [and it slaughtered an animal], the slaughtering would be valid, notwithstanding there was no intention [to slaughter according to ritual]. Who is the Tanna that holds that the intention to slaughter [according to ritual] is not essential? — Raba said: It is R. Nathan. For Oshaia, junior of the collegiate school, learnt: If one threw a knife intending to thrust it into a wall and in its flight it slaughtered an animal in the proper way. R. Nathan declares the slaughtering valid; the Sages declare it invalid. Having reported this, he added that the halachah was in accordance with R. Nathan's view. But has not Raba stated this before [in connection with the following Mishnah]? For we have learnt: ‘And if any of these slaughtered while others were standing over them, their slaughtering is valid’. And it was asked: Who was the Tanna that held that the intention to slaughter [according to ritual] was not essential? And Raba answered: It was R. Nathan! — [Both statements] are necessary. For if he only stated it there [I should have said that only there the slaughtering was valid] because they at least intended to cut, but here since there was no intention to cut [at all] I should have said that it was not valid. And if he only stated it here [I should have said that only here the slaughtering was valid] because it [the act] emanated from a person of sound mind, but there, since it emanated from a person of unsound mind, I should have said that it was not valid. [Both statements] are therefore necessary. It was stated: If a menstruous woman accidentally immersed herself, Rab Judah says in the name of Rab: She is permitted to have intimate relations with her husband, but is forbidden to eat terumah; R. Johanan says: She is not even permitted to have intimate relations with her husband. Raba said to R. Nahman, against Rab's view that she is allowed intimacy with her husband, but is forbidden to eat terumah, [I would put the question:] If you have permitted her that which entails the penalty of kareth, surely you will permit her that which entails only the penalty of death at the hands of Heaven! — He replied: Intimacy with her husband is a ‘common’ thing, and in the case of common things the intention is not essential. Whence do you know this? — From the following Mishnah which we learnt: If a wave containing forty se'ah [of water] was detached [from the sea] and fell upon a man or upon vessels [that were unclean], they are now clean. Presumably a man is on the same footing as vessels, and as vessels have no intention so a man need have no intention. But is this so? Perhaps we are dealing with the case of a man who was sitting and waiting for the wave to become detached!

—

31:2

And [on the contrary] vessels are to be on the same footing as a man, and as a man is capable of forming an intention so in the case of vessels a man must form an intention for them. But should you ask: If we are dealing with the case of a man who was sitting and waiting, why is it at all necessary to be taught? [I reply that] you might have disallowed [this immersion] as a precautionary measure lest he immerse himself in a torrent of rainwater; or you might have disallowed immersion at the edge [of the wave] as a precaution, lest it be thought that immersion is also allowed in the arch of the wave. We are therefore taught that no precautionary measures are necessary. And whence do we know that immersion is not allowed in the arch of the wave? — From [the following Baraitha] which was taught: Immersion is allowed at the edge [of the wave] but not in the arch of the wave, for immersion is not allowed in mid-air. Whence then do we derive the rule that in the case of common things the intention is not essential? — From [the following Mishnah] which we learnt: If fruits had fallen into a channel of water and a person whose hands were unclean stretched out his hands and took them, his hands have become clean, and the rule of ‘if water be put’ does not apply to the fruits. But if his purpose was to wash his hands, his hands have become clean and the rule of ‘if water be put’ applies to the fruits. Raba raised an objection against R. Nahman. [We have learnt:] If a man immersed himself to render himself fit to partake of common food and had this purpose in view, he is forbidden to partake of the Second Tithe. Now this is so only because he had this purpose in view, but if he did not have this purpose in view he may not [partake even of common food]! — [He replied,] This is what it means: Even though he had the purpose in view to render himself fit to partake of common food he is forbidden to eat Second Tithe. He raised this further objection: If he immersed himself but did not have any purpose in view, it is as if he had not immersed himself. Presumably it means: It is as if he had not immersed himself at all? — No, it means: It is as if he had not immersed himself for Second Tithe but he has certainly immersed himself for common food. Now he [Raba] thought that R. Nahman merely intended to point out a possible refutation; he accordingly went and searched, and found [the following Baraitha]: If he immersed himself and had no purpose in view, he is fit to eat common food but not Second Tithe. Abaye said to R. Joseph. Shall we say that this [last Baraitha] is a refutation of R. Johanan's view? — He replied. R. Johanan will concur with the view expressed by R. Jonathan b. Joseph. For it was taught: R. Jonathan b. Joseph says: It is written: And it shall be washed [the second time]. Now what does ‘the second time’ teach us? We must compare the washing on the second occasion with the washing on the first occasion; as the latter must be intentional so the washing on the second occasion shall be intentional. But then it should follow, should it not, that as the washing on the first occasion must be by order of the priest, so shall the washing on the second occasion be by order of the priest? It is therefore written: ‘And it shall be clean’, in all circumstances. But did R. Johanan really say this? Surely R. Johanan has stated that the halachah is always in accordance with the view of an anonymous Mishnah. And we have learnt: IF A KNIFE FELL DOWN AND SLAUGHTERED [AN ANIMAL]. EVEN THOUGH IT SLAUGHTERED IT IN THE PROPER WAY, THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID. And we argued the point thus: ‘This is so only because it fell down [of itself], but if one threw it [and it slaughtered an animal], the slaughtering would be valid, notwithstanding there was no intention [to slaughter according to ritual]’. And we asked: ‘Who is the Tanna that holds that the intention to slaughter [according to ritual] is not essential?’ And Raba said: ‘It is R. Nathan’! — With regard to shechitah even R. Jonathan b. Joseph would concede [that the intention is not essential]; for inasmuch as the Divine Law has expressly laid down that an act performed incidentally in connection with consecrated animals is invalid, it follows that with regard to ‘common’ things the intention is not essential. And the Rabbis? — [They will say:] Granted that with regard to ‘common’ animals It is not essential to have the intention to slaughter [according to ritual], but it is essential to have an intention to cut. In this matter, said Raba, R. Nathan triumphed over the Rabbis. For is there ever written: ‘And thou shalt cut?’ It is written: ‘And thou shalt slaughter’. Therefore, if it is essential to have the intention to cut, it is also essential to have the intention to slaughter [according to ritual], and if it is not essential to have the intention to slaughter [according to ritual], then it is not even essential to have the intention to cut. How did it happen that the menstruous woman accidentally immersed herself? Shall we say that another woman pushed her [into a mikweh] and she thus immersed herself? But surely the intention of the other woman is a perfect intention! Moreover, [in such a case] she would even be allowed to eat terumah! For we have learnt: If a woman was a deaf-mute or an imbecile or blind or not conscious [and she immersed herself], provided there were present women of sound mind to prepare everything for her, she may eat terumah! — R. Papa said: According to R. Nathan [it happened thus:] She fell from a bridge; according to the Rabbis [it happened thus:] She went down [into the sea] to cool herself. Raba said: If a person while slaughtering the Red Cow, slaughtered at the same time another animal, according to all views the Red Cow is invalid.23

—