Chullin 31

קשיין אהדדי

Now is there not a contradiction here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the second and last statements of this Baraitha.');">¹</span>

אלא לאו ש"מ

- This proves that there is a distinction between that which was always attached and that which was first loose and subsequently attached.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the second clause the implement was first loose and subsequently attached to the ground, in which case the slaughtering is valid, whilst in the last clause it was always so attached by nature, and so the slaughtering is invalid.');">²</span>

שאני בין מחובר מעיקרו לתלוש ולבסוף חברו ש"מ

This is proved.

אמר מר

The Master said: 'If one slaughtered with a wheel, the slaughtering is valid'.

השוחט במוכני שחיטתו כשרה

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A wheel turned by the hand of the potter, in which case the slaughtering is valid. It is suggested, however, that even 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.');">³</span>

והתניא

whereas the latter with a wheel turned by water.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The slaughtering in this case is invalid for it is essential that there should be man power in the act of slaughtering. V. infra ');">⁴</span>

שחיטתו פסולה

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 onrush<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The water having been released by man, the slaughtering of the animal is directly referable to the act of man and is therefore valid.');">⁵</span>

ל"ק

[of the water], whereas in the latter case it was turned by the subsequent onrush [of the water].

הא בסרנא דפחרא הא בסרנא דמיא

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.

ואיבעית אימא

What is the reason? - It [the water jet] is, as it were, his arrow wherewith the victim has been attacked.

הא והא בסרנא דמיא ולא קשיא

But this is [the law] only [in the case] where [the victim was killed] by the first onrush<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case the victim was placed close to the water outlet and the murderer then released the water jet, which in its first spurt inundated the victim.');">⁶</span>

הא בכח ראשון הא בכח שני

of the water, but not [where he was] killed by the subsequent onrush<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here the victim was placed some distance away from the water outlet, so that the act of releasing the water jet was not the immediate and direct cause of death, for death came about only later on when the water actually reached the victim.');">⁷</span>

וכי הא דאמר רב פפא

of the water, for then the act was but the indirect cause of the death.

האי מאן דכפתיה לחבריה ואשקיל עליה בידקא דמיא ומית חייב מ"ט

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?

גירי דידיה הוא דאהני ביה

From this verse: And he took the knife to slay.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XXII, 10. This verse certainly suggests that the knife used was a detached implement.');">⁸</span>

וה"מ בכח ראשון אבל בכח שני גרמא בעלמא הוא

Rab then asked R'Hiyya: What can he mean? - He replied: It is just idle talk!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a vav carved on wood', i.e., something unintelligible and indistinct like a line drawn on a rough piece of wood. 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.');">⁹</span>

יתיב רב אחוריה דרבי חייא ורבי חייא קמיה דרבי ויתיב רבי וקאמר

But does he not adduce a verse? - The verse merely serves to show the enthusiasm of Abraham.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abraham took a knife with him merely because he was in doubt whether he would find on the holy mountain a suitable implement wherewith to slaughter his sacrifice.');">¹⁰</span>

מנין לשחיטה שהוא בתלוש

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.

שנאמר

For Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Bah.; cur. ed: 'A master said'.');">¹¹</span>

(בראשית כב, י) ויקח את המאכלת לשחוט

has ruled that if a man worshipped his own house,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A house consists of materials originally loose which were subsequently built up and attached to the ground.');">¹²</span>

א"ל רב לרבי חייא

it thereby becomes forbidden [to be used for any purpose].

מאי קאמר

Now if you were to hold that such an object is to be regarded as attached, wherefore is the house forbidden?

א"ל

Is it not written, [Ye shall surely destroy.] their gods upon the mountains,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 2.');">¹³</span>

וי"ו דכתיב אאופתא קאמר

but not the mountains which are themselves their gods?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This verse proves that whatever is attached cannot become prohibited, even if it is itself an object of idolatrous worship.');">¹⁴</span>

והא קרא קאמר

In the law concerning the susceptibility of plants to become unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the verse in Lev. XI, 38: If water be put upon seed, and aught of their carcass fill thereon, it is unclean unto 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.');">¹⁵</span>

קרא זריזותיה דאברהם קמ"ל

it is the subject of dispute between Tannaim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether what was first loose and subsequently attached is to be regarded as attached or not. V. R. Eleazar's view infra.');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רבא

For we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maksh. IV, 3.');">¹⁷</span>

פשיטא לי תלוש ולבסוף חברו לענין עבודת כוכבים הוי תלוש דאמר מר

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This case would come under rule (c) in note 5 supra.');">¹⁸</span>

המשתחוה לבית שלו אסרו

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because here the rainwater is in no wise acceptable; cf. rule (b) .');">¹⁹</span>

ואי ס"ד הוי מחובר (דברים יב, ב) אלהיהם על ההרים ולא ההרים אלהיהם

Now is there not an inconsistency here?

לענין הכשר זרעים תנאי היא דתנן

The first clause reads: 'If.

הכופה קערה על הכותל בשביל שתודח הרי זה בכי יותן בשביל שלא ילקה הכותל אינו בכי יותן

in order that the dish might be washed, the ru of "if water be put" applies'.

הא גופא קשיא אמרת

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.

בשביל שתודח הרי זה בכי יותן הא בשביל שיודח הכותל אין זה בכי יותן

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'.

והדר תני

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.

בשביל שלא ילקה הכותל אינו בכי יותן הא בשביל שיודח הכותל ה"ז בכי יותן

- R'Eleazar replied.

א"ר אלעזר

You must break up [this Mishnah], for he who taught the first clause could not have taught the second!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., this Mishnah contains the different opinions of two Tannaim.');">²⁰</span>

תברא מי ששנה זו לא שנה זו

R'Papa, however, answered: Indeed, the whole was taught by one Tanna, but the first clause deals with the wall of a cave,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a wall so formed by nature, as opposed to a wall built up from loose materials.');">²¹</span>

רב פפא אמר

whereas the second clause deals with a built-up wall.

כולה חד תנא הוא הא בכותל מערה הא בכותל בנין וה"ק

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.

הכופה קערה על הכותל בשביל שתודח ה"ז בכי יותן הא בשביל שיודח הכותל אין זה בכי יותן

Now this is stated only in the case of a cave wall; but in the cas 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 wat 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.

בד"א בכותל מערה אבל בכותל בנין בשביל שלא ילקה הכותל הוא דאינו בכי יותן הא בשביל שיודח הכותל ה"ז בכי יותן

Raba now raised the question:

בעי רבא