Chullin

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];1 it does not say ‘afar’ but ‘be-’afar’.2 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].3 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 necks4 [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.5 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 rends6 [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.7 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,8 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’.9 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 they10 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 woman11 accidentally immersed herself,12 Rab Judah says in the name of Rab: She is permitted to have intimate relations with her husband,13 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,14 surely you will permit her that which entails only the penalty of death at the hands of Heaven!15 — He replied: Intimacy with her husband is a ‘common’16 thing, and in the case of common things the intention is not essential.17 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.18 Presumably a man is on the same footing as vessels, and as vessels have no intention so a man need have no intention.19 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! between two layers of earth. and expressed his intention of using the soil for this purpose (Rashi). incapable of forming an intention to slaughter according to ritual. in order to be allowed to resume intimate relations with her husband. XX. 18. Kareth, for the latter is a punishment to the offender and to his seed as well, whereas the former only affects the offender himself. Mik. V, 6.