Chullin 31a (לא.) — the Talmud in English

We see

the plucked feathers [the feathers of the neck are seen to have been cut, which shows that the arrow cut the skin and did not become covered as it cut the signs].

And we raised an objection:

But

the blood of a bird

requires covering,

and one may not slaughter if he will not subsequently be able to cover the blood ?

And if you would say that they cover it [and if you would answer that they cover it]

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

But Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: One who slaughters

a wild animal or a bird

must place

before the slaughter

earth

loose earth

below,

so that the blood will spill upon it,

and

afterward he must place

earth above,

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

And Rav expounded a verse:

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

“And he shall cover it with

earth” is not stated

which would indicate that one must place earth above;

rather,

it is stated

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

and in this way the blood will be concealed in earth .

The question now arises: How could Rabbi Yona have slaughtered the bird without being able to place earth below it?

And we answer: It is possible

that he prepared all the earth of the valley [he prepared the earth throughout the valley]

by pulverizing the ground into earth .

We learned in our Mishna:

If he was slaughtering and severed

the head in a single motion, if the knife contains the full length of a neck, it is valid.

Rabbi Zeira said:

The knife must be long

the length of a neck plus beyond the neck.

They raised a dilemma:

Must the knife contain

the full length of a neck

of the animal being slaughtered,

and

must there additionally be

beyond the neck the length of a neck,

and Rabbi Zeira is interpreting the Mishna’s statement “the full length of a neck” as referring to the portion beyond the neck, in addition to the self-evident requirement that a knife equal in length to a neck lie upon the neck,

so that it would have

in total

two neck-lengths of knife?

Or perhaps, “the full length of a neck”

as written in the Mishna refers to the portion lying upon the neck,

and

Rabbi Zeira said that there must additionally be

something beyond the neck ?

Come and hear

a proof for the first possibility: The Mishna states:

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

it is valid.

And we clarify:

What is meant by “the full length of one neck”

in the latter clause?

If you say

that the entire length of the knife is

the full length of one neck and no more,

this certainly cannot be said.

Now, in the case of one animal, we require the full length of a neck plus beyond the neck;

is it conceivable that

for two animals it is sufficient for them

to have

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 in total the knife must be long enough for three necks.

And we conclude:

Conclude from this

that even when the first clause states

“the full length of a neck,”

it means

beyond the neck; conclude from this.

We learned in our Mishna:

In what case is this statement said? When he moved the knife forward but did not bring it back ...

But if he moved it forward and brought it back, even if the knife was of any size, even if it was a scalpel, it is valid.

Rav Menashe said:

They declared the slaughter valid only

with a scalpel that has no horns,

but those scalpels whose ends are made with hornlike projections for ornament, with the projections curving downward, are unfit for slaughter, because of the concern that the scalpel might slip from the animal’s neck and the projections might pierce the signs.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Menashe:

Since it is possible to slaughter with a small knife,

what is the ruling with a needle?

Can one move the point of a needle back and forth across the neck, and is the slaughter valid?

He said to him:

Rav Menashe said to him:

A needle tears [a needle tears]

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

Rav Aḥa asked:

What is the ruling with a shoemaker’s needle?

Shoemakers have somewhat thick needles, and near the point the needle has a sharp sloping edge designed to cut stitches. Can one slaughter with them as with a small knife?

He said to him:

Rav Menashe said to him:

We learned

[it is written in the Mishna]:

even if it is of any size—

it is valid.

Does this not mean

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

a shoemaker’s needle?

And we reject this:

No,

when the Mishna said “of any size,” it meant

a scalpel,

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

And we challenge this interpretation:

A scalpel—

it is explicitly taught

[“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 slaughter only with a scalpel and not with anything smaller, and the tanna

is explaining

his own words.

What is meant by “of any size”

that I stated?

A scalpel,

and not anything smaller.

And we support this interpretation:

This too is reasonably understood, for if you should think

that the Mishna’s phrase “of any size” refers to

a shoemaker’s needle,

as Rav Menashe interpreted it, then it would be superfluous to state that one may slaughter with a scalpel, since

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

which is longer

would certainly be permitted!

And we reject the attempted support: “of any size” indeed means even a shoemaker’s needle, as Rav Menashe interpreted it, but

the scalpel was necessary

for the tanna to teach us a novel ruling with regard to it.

It might have entered your mind to say that since there are scalpels with horns and they are unfit,

we should decree that a scalpel without horns is prohibited on account of a scalpel with horns

and declare all scalpels unfit;

it teaches us

that a scalpel without horns is valid.

The Gemara remains uncertain whether one may 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 in the proper manner

without pressing or concealing the knife—the slaughter

is unfit, 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 performed through human agency .

Gemara:

The Gemara infers from the Mishna:

The reason

that we declare it unfit is specifically

that it fell

by itself and did not slaughter through human agency.

But if he caused it to fall

unintentionally,

it is valid, even though he did not intend

to slaughter, but rather to cause the knife to fall .

And we raised an objection:

Who is the tanna

who holds

that intention for slaughter is not required

and that the Torah’s statement, “And you shall slaughter,” does not include a requirement that one intend to slaughter ?

Rava said: It is Rabbi Natan,

who disagreed with the Sages in a beraita.

As Osheya Ze'ira of Ḥavrayya taught

[the youngest of the group ]:

If one threw a knife

in order

to embed it in a wall, and it went

the knife

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

He taught it

[Osheya learned the beraita from his teacher],

and he stated it

on his own authority:

The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Natan.

And Rava infers from the Mishna that it follows Rabbi Natan.

And we challenge this:

But

Rava already

said this once

with regard to the first Mishna in the tractate, that our Mishna follows Rabbi Natan.

As we learned: And all of them

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

who slaughtered, and others observe them

and say that they slaughtered properly—

their slaughter is valid.

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

and declares valid the slaughter of minors, who do not intend to 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 if one dropped a knife and it slaughtered without intent, its slaughter is valid.

For if it had informed us

only

that case,

it could have been said that the Mishna validated the slaughter only

because the minor intended

to cut something

for the sake of any cutting whatsoever,

although he did not intend to cut the simanim.

But here, where he did not intend

at all,

say no:

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

And if it had informed us

of the Mishna

here,

that if one dropped a knife and it slaughtered, the slaughter is valid, it could have been said that although with regard to intent, dropping a knife and slaughtering with it is inferior to the slaughter of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, nevertheless, with regard to another aspect, its slaughter is superior to theirs

because it comes by the force of one with understanding,

who is legally capable of slaughter.

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

perhaps its slaughter would not be valid.

It is necessary

for the Mishna to teach that he is legally capable of slaughter.

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

in a mikveh without intending to become pure: Is she pure or not?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: She is pure for her household

permitted to engage in marital relations with her husband,

but she is prohibited from eating teruma

if she is the wife of a koen, for by Torah law she is pure in every respect, as immersion does not require intent, but the Sages imposed stringency with regard to teruma.

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

because immersion requires intent by Torah law.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: According to Rav, who said, “She is pure for her household but prohibited from eating teruma,”

there is a difficulty: The prohibition against relations with a menstruant is

a sin

that carries

karet—

it has been permitted

through this immersion;

the prohibition

against eating teruma while impure, which carries

death

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

is it necessary

to say that it should be permitted through it?!

He said to him:

Rav Naḥman: The matter does not depend on the severity of the prohibition, but on the level of sanctity. With teruma and consecrated property there are special levels in the laws of impurity and purity, and one must intend for their sake when immersing; but

her husband is non-sacred, and non-sacred matters do not require intent.

Rav Naḥman adds:

And from where do you say this

that non-sacred matters do not require intent?

As we learned: A wave that broke away

from the sea

and contained forty se'ah

of water, the measure of a mikveh,

and fell upon a person and upon utensils

that were on the seashore—

they are pure 157 .

[Mikvaot 5:6].

And Rav Naḥman proves:

Is it not that a person is analogous to utensils?

[Is the purification of a person not analogous to the purification of utensils?]

Just as utensils do not have intent,

for they have no understanding,

so too, a person does not require intent.

Rava rejects this:

From where

is this evident?

Perhaps it is dealing

with one who is sitting

and waiting

for the wave and anticipating when it will break away and purify him, and in any event he is not pure otherwise.