Chullin

Now is there not a contradiction here?1 — This proves that there is a distinction between that which was always attached and that which was first loose and subsequently attached. 2 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,3 whereas the latter with a wheel turned by water.4 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 onrush5 [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 onrush6 of the water, but not [where he was] killed by the subsequent onrush7 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.8 Rab then asked R. Hiyya: What can he mean? — He replied: It is just idle talk!9 But does he not adduce a verse? — The verse merely serves to show the enthusiasm of Abraham.10 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 Rab11 has ruled that if a man worshipped his own house,12 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,13 but not the mountains which are themselves their gods?14 In the law concerning the susceptibility of plants to become unclean,15 it is the subject of dispute between Tannaim.16 For we have learnt:17 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.18 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.19 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!20 R. Papa, however, answered: Indeed, the whole was taught by one Tanna, but the first clause deals with the wall of a cave,21 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: slaughtering is valid, whilst in the last clause it was always so attached by nature, and so the slaughtering is invalid. in the case of a potter's wheel the slaughtering is valid only if the throat was cut by the first revolution of the wheel. The subsequent revolutions are not directly referable to the human act. V. comment of R. Jonah on Ber.; end of chap. VIII. infra 31a and Deut. XXVII, 7. therefore valid. first spurt inundated the victim. not the immediate and direct cause of death, for death came about only later on when the water actually reached the victim. He meant to say that Rabbi was not to be taken seriously, for R. Hiyya is of the opinion that it is not essential for the slaughtering to be performed with a detached implement. suitable implement wherewith to slaughter his sacrifice. worship. you, is derived the rule that produce or foodstuffs, in order to be rendered capable of becoming unclean, must first be made wet by water or other specified liquids (v. Maksh. VI, 4). So that the rule should apply, that is, that the produce should become susceptible to uncleanness, it is necessary that: (a) the water should have been applied purposely, or (b) the presence of the water on the foodstuff should have afforded pleasure or should have been acceptable at some time to the owner, or (c) where the water on the foodstuff was not acceptable, the presence of this same water on some other object should have previously afforded pleasure, provided that such object was loose or detached. infra.