Chullin 61

Chapter 61

א גידפי דמיפרמי
1 that the feathers on the front of the neck were also cut.
ב והא בעי כסוי
2 But what about covering the blood?
ג וכי תימא דמכסו ליה והאמר רבי זירא אמר רב
3 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.
ד השוחט צריך שיתן עפר למטה ועפר למעלה שנאמר
4 And he shall cover it with dust [be-'afar];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII. 23. Heb. , lit., 'in dust'. c');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ה (ויקרא יז, יג) וכסהו בעפר עפר לא נאמר אלא בעפר מלמד שהשוחט צריך שיתן עפר למטה ועפר למעלה
5 it does not say 'afar' but 'be-'afar'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The preposition , 'in', signifies that the blood shall he in earth, i.e., entirely covered with earth above and below, or between two layers of earth.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ו דמזמין ליה לעפר דכולה פתקא:
6 in order to teach that he who slaughters [a bird' or a wild beast] must place dust underneath [the blood] and dust above it.
ז היה שוחט והתיז [וכו']:
7 - He prepared the soil of the entire valley [for this purpose].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He broke up the soil in the whole valley in readiness for receiving the blood or he found the soil already broken up and expressed his intention of using the soil for this purpose (Rashi) .');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ח אמר רבי זירא
8 IF, WHILST CUTTING, HE CUT THROUGH THE NECK WITH ONE STROKE.
ט מלא צואר וחוץ לצואר
9 [PROVIDED THE KNIFE EXTENDED THE WIDTH OF A NECK].
י איבעיא להו
10 R'Zera said: The width of a neck and also beyond the neck.
יא מלא צואר וחוץ לצואר כמלא צואר דהוו לה תרי צוארי או דלמא
11 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.
יב מלא צואר וחוץ לצואר משהו
12 Now what is the meaning of THE WIDTH OF A NECK?
יג תא שמע
13 Can it mean the width of a neck and no more?
יד היה שוחט והתיז שני ראשין בבת אחת אם יש לסכין מלא צואר אחד כשר
14 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?
טו מאי מלא צואר אחד
15 Obviously, it must mean, the width of a neck beyond the two necks<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,the knife must be three necks long.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
טז אילימא מלא צואר אחד ותו לא השתא בבהמה אחת בעינן מלא צואר וחוץ לצואר בשתי בהמות סגי להו כמלא צואר אחד
16 [which are being slaughtered].
יז אלא פשיטא מלא צואר חוץ לשני צוארין
17 This, therefore, proves that [R'Zera means] there must be the width of a neck beyond the neck.
יח ש"מ
18 THESE PROVISIONS APPLY ONLY TO THE CASE WHERE HE MOVED THE KNIFE FORWARD AND NOT BACKWARD.
יט מלא צואר חוץ לצואר ש"מ:
19 HOWEVER SMALL IT WAS, EVEN IF IT WAS A LANCET, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID.
כ בד"א בזמן שהוליך ולא הביא וכו':
20 R'Manasseh said: The Mishnah refers to a lancet which has no projections.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'horns'. The projection or point would pierce the organs during the slaughtering thus rendering it invalid.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
כא אמר רב מנשה
21 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 rends<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A needle, even when moved to and fro, tears the organs and does not cut them; hence the slaughtering is invalid.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
כב באיזמל שאין לו קרנים
22 [the flesh].
כג אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרב אויא לרב מנשה
23 What if one used a shoemakers' awl? - He replied: We have learnt it in our Mishnah: HOWEVER SMALL IT WAS.
כד מחטא מאי
24 Surely this includes the shoemakers' awl! - No, it refers to a lancet.
כה אמר ליה
25 But a lancet is expressly mentioned later? - No; it is merely explanatory; thus: HOWEVER SMALL IT WAS, namely: A LANCET.
כו מחטא מבזע בזע
26 And this is logical too.
כז מחטא דאושכפי מאי
27 For if you say that it includes a shoemakers' awl, then [it will be asked].
כח אמר ליה תנינא
28 If a shoemakers' awl is allowed, what need is there to mention a lancet?
כט אפילו כל שהוא מאי לאו מחטא דאושכפי
29 [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.
ל לא איזמל
30 [The Mishnah] therefore teaches us [that this is not prohibited].
לא איזמל בהדיא קתני לה
31 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A KNIFE FELL DOWN AND SLAUGHTERED [AN ANIMAL], EVEN THOUGH IT SLAUGHTERED IT IN THE PROPER WAY.
לב פרושי קא מפרש
32 THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, AND THOU SHALT SLAUGHTER'AND THOU SHALT EAT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 21.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
לג מאי כל שהו איזמל
33 THAT IS TO SAY, THAT WHICH THOU DOST SLAUGHTER MAYEST THOU EAT.
לד ה"נ מסתברא דאי ס"ד מחטא דאושכפי השתא מחטא דאושכפי שריא איזמל מיבעיא
34 <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>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].
לה איזמל אצטריכא ליה ס"ד אמינא
35 Who is the Tanna that holds that the intention to slaughter [according to ritual] is not essential? - Raba said: It is R'Nathan.
לו ליגזר איזמל שאין לו קרנים אטו איזמל שיש לו קרנים קא משמע לן:
36 For Oshaia, junior of the collegiate school,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 56.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
לז <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נפלה סכין ושחטה אע"פ ששחטה כדרכה פסולה שנאמר
37 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.
לח (דברים כז, ז) וזבחת ואכלת מה שאתה זובח אתה אוכל:
38 R'Nathan declares the slaughtering valid; the Sages declare it invalid.
לט <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> טעמא דנפלה הא הפילה הוא כשרה ואע"ג דלא מיכוין
39 Having reported this, he added that the halachah was in accordance with R'Nathan's view.
מ מאן תנא דלא בעינן כוונה לשחיטה
40 But has not Raba stated this before [in connection with the following Mishnah]?
מא אמר רבא
41 For we have learnt: 'And if any of these slaughtered while others were standing over them, their slaughtering is valid'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 2a. This passage refers (inter alia) to the slaughtering by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, who are incapable of forming an intention to slaughter according to ritual.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
מב ר' נתן היא דתני אושעיא זעירא דמן חבריא
42 And it was asked: Who was the Tanna that held that the intention to slaughter [according to ritual] was not essential?
מג זרק סכין לנועצה בכותל והלכה ושחטה כדרכה ר' נתן מכשיר וחכמים פוסלים
43 And Raba answered: It was R'Nathan! - [Both statements] are necessary.
מד הוא תני לה והוא אמר לה
44 For if he only stated it there [I should have said that only there the slaughtering was valid] because they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deaf-mute, the imbecile or the minor.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
מה הלכה כר' נתן
45 at least intended to cut, but here since there was no intention to cut [at all] I should have s that it was not valid.
מו והא אמרה רבא חדא זימנא
46 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.
מז דתנן
47 [Both statements] are therefore necessary.
מח וכולן ששחטו ואחרים רואין אותן שחיטתן כשרה
48 It was stated: If a menstruous woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case whose period of uncleanness had passed and she but required ritual immersion in a mikweh or in the sea in order to be allowed to resume intimate relations with her husband.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
מט ואמרינן
49 accidentally immersed herself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., she fell from a bridge into the sea. V. infra.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
נ מאן תנא דלא בעי כוונה לשחיטה
50 Rab Judah says in the name of Rab: She is permitted to have intimate relations with her husband,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'she is clean, to her home', a euphemistic expression.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
נא ואמר רבא
51 but is forbidden to eat terumah; R'Johanan says: She is not even permitted to have intimate relations with her husband.
נב רבי נתן היא
52 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The penalty for having sexual intercourse with a menstruous woman is Kareth, i.e., excision, being cut off. V. Lev. XX. 18.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
נג צריכא דאי אשמועינן התם משום דקא מיכוין לשום חתיכה בעולם אבל הכא דלא קא מיכוין אימא לא
53 surely you will permit her that which entails only the penalty of death at the hands of Heaven!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being the penalty for eating terumah in an unclean state. Death at the hands of Heaven is less severe than Kareth, for the latter is a punishment to the offender and to his seed as well, whereas the former only affects the offender himself. ihkuj');"><sup>15</sup></span>
נד ואי אשמעינן הכא משום דקאתי מכח בן דעת אבל התם דלא קאתי מכח בן דעת אימא לא צריכא:
54 - He replied: Intimacy with her husband is a 'common'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. i.e., common, ordinary, unconsecrated matter, as opposed to terumah and consecrated matter.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
נה אתמר
55 thing, and in the case of common things the intention is not essential.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the intention to perform a particular act which renders it permitted is not essential.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
נו נדה שנאנסה וטבלה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב
56 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They have thus received a ritual immersion. Forty se'ah is the minimum amount of water to constitute a mikweh. V. Mik. V, 6.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
נז טהורה לביתה ואסורה לאכול בתרומה
57 Presumably a man is on the same footing as vessels, and as vessels have no intention so a man need have no intention.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He need not immerse himself for the specific purpose of being rendered clean.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
נח ור' יוחנן אמר
58 But is this so?
נט אף לביתה לא טהרה
59 Perhaps we are dealing with the case of a man who was sitting and waiting for the wave to become detached!
ס א"ל רבא לר"נ
60 
סא לרב דאמר
61 
סב טהורה לביתה ואסורה לאכול בתרומה עון כרת הותרה איסור מיתה מיבעיא
62 
סג אמר ליה
63 
סד בעלה חולין הוא וחולין לא בעי כוונה
64 
סה ומנא תימרא
65 
סו דתנן
66 
סז גל שנתלש ובו ארבעים סאה ונפל על האדם ועל הכלים טהורין
67 
סח מאי לאו אדם דומיא דכלים
68 
סט מה כלים דלא מיכווני אף אדם נמי לא בעי כוונה
69 
ע ממאי
70 
עא דלמא ביושב ומצפה עסקינן אימתי יתלש הגל
71 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter