Chullin 31a — the Talmud in English

We see ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

the cut feathers [the feathers of the neck are seen to be cut], and this shows that the arrow cut the skin and did not become covered when it cut the סימנים.

And we raised an objection:

But

the blood of a bird

requires covering,

and one may not slaughter if afterward he will be unable to cover the blood ?

And if you should say, that they cover it [and if you will answer that they should cover it] in the place where the blood falls, this is still insufficient according to Rav's words.

where the blood falls, this still does not suffice according to Rav’s statement.

For Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav: One who slaughters

a wild animal or bird

must place

before the slaughter

earth

loose

below,

so that the blood will spill upon it,

and

afterward he places

earth above,

and one may not slaughter upon hard ground, which is not called “earth.”

And Rav expounds a verse:

as it is stated: “And he shall cover it with earth” [Leviticus 17:13]

“and he shall cover it with earth”;

“earth” was not stated

which would indicate that one must place earth above,

rather

it was stated

“with earth,” teaching that one who slaughters must place earth below and earth above

and through this the blood will be hidden in earth .

And from now the question arises: How did Rabbi Yona slaughter the bird without being able to place earth below?

And we answer: It is possible

that he prepared the earth of the entire valley [he would prepare the earth of the entire valley]

by crushing the ground into earth .

We learned in our Mishna:

If he was slaughtering and severed

the head at one stroke, if there is on the knife the full length of a neck—it is valid.

Rabbi Zeira said:

The knife must be long

the full length of a neck and beyond the neck.

They raised a dilemma before them:

Does the knife need to have

the full length of the neck

being slaughtered,

and

also have

beyond the neck the length of a neck,

and Rabbi Zeira explains the wording in the Mishna, “the full length of a neck,” as referring to what is beyond the neck, in addition to what is self-evidently lying upon the neck, the length of a neck,

so that there would be

on the knife altogether

two necks.

Or perhaps, “the full length of a neck”

in the Mishna refers to what lies upon the neck,

and

Rabbi Zeira said that there must also be

something beyond the neck ?

Come and hear

a proof for the first side: It is written in the Mishna:

If he was slaughtering and severed two heads at one stroke, if the knife has the full length of one neck—

it is valid.

And we clarify:

What is “the full length of one neck”

written in the latter clause?

If you say

that the entire length of the knife is

the full length of one neck and no more,

certainly this cannot be said;

now, in the case of one animal, we require the full length of a neck and beyond the neck,

is it possible that

for two animals it is sufficient for them [that they be sufficient] with

the full length of one neck ?!

the measure of one neck ?!

And we say:

Rather, it is obvious

that

“the full length of a neck”

written in the latter clause is

beyond the two necks,

and altogether the knife must have enough for three necks.

And we conclude:

Infer from this

that even when it says in the first clause

“the full length of a neck,”

the meaning is

beyond the neck; infer from this.

We learned in our Mishna:

In what case are these words said? When he moved [the knife] forward but did not bring it back ...

but if he moved it forward and brought it back, even by any amount, even with a scalpel—it is valid.

Rav Menashya said:

They declared it valid only

with a scalpel that has no horns,

but those scalpels that are made at their ends in the form of horns for adornment, and the horns curve downward, are invalid for slaughter, because of the concern that the scalpel may slip from the animal's neck and the horns may pierce the סימנים.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Menashya

this question: Since it is possible to slaughter with a small knife,

what is the law with regard to a needle?

Is it possible to move the point of the needle forward and back over the neck, and the slaughter would be valid?

He said to him

Rav Menashya:

A needle tears [a needle tears]

the סימנים, and it is impossible to slaughter with it.

Rav Aḥa asked:

What is the law with regard to a shoemaker's needle?

Shoemakers have somewhat thick needles, and near the point the needle has a sharp slope made to cut the stitches; is it possible to slaughter with them as with a small knife?

He said to him

Rav Menashya:

We learned [it is written in the Mishna]:

[it is written in the Mishna]:

even by any amount—

valid.

Does this not mean [does it not imply] that it is possible to slaughter even with the mouth of

[does it not imply] that one may slaughter even with the tip of

a shoemaker's needle?

And we reject this:

No,

the Mishna's intention when it said “any amount” is

a scalpel,

but the mouth of a shoemaker's needle is too small, and it is impossible to slaughter with it.

And we challenge this explanation:

A scalpel—

it is explicitly taught [“a scalpel” is written explicitly in the Mishna], and surely when the Mishna said “any amount,” its intention was something else!

[“a scalpel” is written explicitly in the Mishna], and certainly when the Mishna said “of any size,” it intended something else!

And we answer: In truth, the Mishna permitted only with a scalpel and not with anything smaller than it, and the tanna

is explaining

his own words:

What is “any amount”

that I said?

A scalpel,

and not anything smaller.

And we support this explanation:

This too is reasonable, for if you should think

that the Mishna's intention with “any amount” is

a shoemaker's needle,

as Rav Menashya explained, then it would be superfluous to state that it is possible to slaughter with a scalpel, since

now, if a shoemaker's needle is permitted, a scalpel

which is longer

is it necessary to say so?!

And we reject the support: “Any amount” does indeed mean even a shoemaker's needle, according to Rav Menashya's explanation, and

the scalpel was necessary for him

the tanna to teach a novelty with regard to it:

You might have thought

that since there are scalpels that have horns and they are invalid,

we should decree that a scalpel without horns is [invalid] because of a scalpel with horns

and invalidate all scalpels;

he teaches us

the tanna that a scalpel without horns is valid.

The Gemara remains uncertain whether it is possible to slaughter with a shoemaker's needle .

Mishna:

If a knife fell

by itself onto the animal's neck

and slaughtered

it,

even though it slaughtered it in the proper manner

without pressing or concealment—the slaughter

is invalid, as it is stated: “And you shall slaughter and eat” [Deuteronomy 12:21]

the Torah said:

What you slaughter—

you may eat;

we learn that the slaughter must be through human agency .

Gemara:

The Gemara derives a point from the Mishna:

The reason

that we invalidate it is specifically because

it fell

the knife by itself and it did not slaughter through human agency.

But if he caused it to fall

unintentionally—

it is valid, even though he did not intend

for slaughter, but rather to make the knife fall .

And we raised an objection:

Who is the tanna

who holds

that intention for slaughter is not required

and that what the Torah said, “And you shall slaughter,” does not include a requirement that there be intention for slaughter ?

Rava said: It is Rabbi Natan

who disagreed with the Sages in a beraita.

For Osheya Ze'ira from Havre taught [the youngest of the group ]:

[the youngest of the group ]:

If one threw a knife

in order

to drive it into a wall, and it went

the knife

and slaughtered in the proper manner, Rabbi Natan declares it valid, and the Sages declare it invalid.

He taught it [Osheya learned the beraita from his teacher],

[Osheya learned the beraita from his teacher],

and he stated it

on his own authority:

The halakha is according to Rabbi Natan.

And Rava infers from the Mishna that it holds according to Rabbi Natan.

And we challenge:

But

he already

said it once, Rava

regarding the first Mishna in the tractate, that our Mishna holds according to Rabbi Natan.

For we learned: And all of them [a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor]

[a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor]

who slaughtered, and others observe them

and say that they slaughtered according to law—

their slaughter is valid.

And we said: Who is the tanna who does not require intention for slaughter

and declares the slaughter of minors valid, who do not intend for slaughter but only to cut meat?

And Rava said: It is Rabbi Natan !

And we answer:

It is necessary

for Rava to infer from this Mishna that one who dropped a knife and it slaughtered without intention—his slaughter is valid,

for if he had taught us

only

there,

it could have been said that the Mishna validated it only

because the minor intends

the minor

for the sake of cutting anything in the world

although he does not intend to cut the organs,

but here, where he does not intend

at all,

say: no,

the Mishna does not hold like Rabbi Natan in this matter.

And if he had taught us

the Mishna

here

that one who dropped a knife and it slaughtered—it is valid, it could have been said that although, with regard to intention, the case of one who drops a knife and it slaughters is inferior to the slaughter of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, nevertheless, on the other hand, his slaughter has an advantage over theirs

because it comes by the force of one possessing understanding

who is fit for slaughter ,

but there, where it does not come by the force of one possessing understanding, say: no

his slaughter will not be valid,

it is necessary

for the Mishna to teach that it is fit for slaughter .

It was stated: A menstruant woman who was compelled and immersed

in a ritual bath without intending to become pure—is she pure or not ?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: She is pure for her home [

she is permitted to have marital relations with her husband],

but she is forbidden to eat teruma

if she is the wife of a koen, for by Torah law she is pure in every respect, since immersion does not require intention, but the Sages were stringent regarding teruma .

And Rabbi Yohanan said: She is not pure even for her home

because immersion requires intention by Torah law.

Rava said to Rav Nahman: According to Rav, who says, “She is pure for her home but forbidden to eat teruma,”

there is a difficulty: the prohibition of a menstruant woman, which is

a sin

that involves

excision—

has been permitted

by this immersion,

the prohibition

of eating teruma in impurity, which involves

death

at the hands of Heaven, which is less severe than excision

is it necessary

that it should be permitted through it?!

He said to him

Rav Nahman: The matter does not depend on the severity of the prohibition, but on the level of sanctity. With teruma and sacred offerings there are distinctions in the laws of impurity and purity, and one must intend for their sake when immersing, but

her husband is unconsecrated, and unconsecrated matter does not require intention.

Rav Nahman adds

And from where do you say [

from where do we know that unconsecrated matter does not require intention]?

For we learned: A wave that was detached

from the sea

and contained forty seah

of water, the measure of a ritual bath

and fell upon the person and upon the vessels

that were at the seashore—

they are pure 157 . [

Mikvaot, chapter 5, Mishna 6].

And Rav Nahman proves:

Is it not that a person is comparable to vessels? [

Is the purification of a person not comparable to the purification of vessels?]

Just as vessels do not intend

for they have no understanding,

so too, a person does not require intention.

And Rava rejects this:

From where [do you know this]? Perhaps it is speaking of one who is sitting

the person

and awaiting—

we are dealing—

[with one awaiting] when the wave will be detached

and purify him, and otherwise he is not pure,