Chullin 62

וכלים דומיא דאדם מה אדם דבעינן כוונה אף כלים נמי דקא מכוין להו אדם

And [on the contrary] vessels are to be on the same footing as a man, and as a man is capable of forming an intention so in the case of vessels a man must form an intention for them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the result would be that for all matters, animate or inanimate, even for 'common' matters, a specific intention is essential.');">¹</span>

וכי תימא

But should you ask: If we are dealing with the case of a man who was sitting and waiting, why is it at all necessary to be taught?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is obvious that he is rendered clean, for he had the requisite intention, since he was looking forward to being immersed by the wave!');">²</span>

ביושב ומצפה מאי למימרא

[I reply that] you might have disallowed [this immersion] as a precautionary measure lest he immerse himself in a torrent of rainwater;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Running down the mountain side. Immersion in such torrent is unlawful, v. Mik. V. 5 and Toh. VIII, 9.');">³</span>

מהו דתימא

or you might have disallowed immersion at the edge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a wave breaks over land it is established (Tosef. Mik. IV) that one may immerse a vessel at the extreme end of the wave where it touches the ground, but not in the middle of the wave where it is arched above the ground; for it is essential that at the time of immersion the water must be touching the ground, and not suspended in mid-air.');">⁴</span>

ליגזר משום חרדלית של גשמים אי נמי ליגזר ראשין אטו כיפין קמ"ל דלא גזרינן

[of the wave] as a precaution, lest it be thought that immersion is also allowed in the arch<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a wave breaks over land it is established (Tosef. Mik. IV) that one may immerse a vessel at the extreme end of the wave where it touches the ground, but not in the middle of the wave where it is arched above the ground; for it is essential that at the time of immersion the water must be touching the ground, and not suspended in mid-air.');">⁴</span>

ומנא תימרא דלא מטבלינן בכיפין

of the wave.

דתנן

We are therefore taught that no precautionary measures are necessary.

מטבילין בראשין ואין מטבילין בכיפין שאין מטבילין באויר

And whence do we know that immersion is not allowed in the arch of the wave? - From [the following Baraitha] which was taught: Immersion is allowed at the edge [of the wave] but not in the arch of the wave, for immersion is not allowed in mid-air.

אלא חולין דלא בעי כוונה מיהא מנלן

Whence then do we derive the rule that in the case of common things the intention is not essential? - From [the following Mishnah] which we learnt: If fruits had fallen into a channel of water and a person whose hands were unclean stretched out his hands and took them, his hands have become clean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though he had no intention of washing his hands. This Mishnah clearly proves that with regard to 'common' food the intention is not essential.');">⁵</span>

דתנן

and the rule of 'if water be put'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 38. The application of the rule 'if water be put' means that the food has been rendered susceptible to uncleanness. Since the fruits became wet accidentally they are not thereby rendered susceptible to uncleanness; v. supra p. 77, n. 5.');">⁶</span>

פירות שנפלו לתוך אמת המים ופשט מי שידיו טמאות ונטלן ידיו טהורות ופירות אינן בכי יותן

does not apply to the fruits.

ואם בשביל שיודחו ידיו טהורות ופירות בכי יותן

But if his purpose was to wash his hands, his hands have become clean and the rule of 'if water be put' applies to the fruits.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the water affords pleasure to this man for washing his hands, it will render the fruits susceptible to uncleanness. V. supra, loc. cit.');">⁷</span>

איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן

Raba raised an objection against R'Nahman.

טבל לחולין והוחזק לחולין אסור למעשר

[We have learnt:] If a man immersed himself to render himself fit to partake of common food and had this purpose in view, he is forbidden to partake of the Second Tithe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hag. 18b.');">⁸</span>

הוחזק אין לא הוחזק לא

Now this is so only because he had this purpose in view, but if he did not have this purpose in view he may not [partake even of common food]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably because the intention was wanting. Hence it is essential to have the proper intention even with regard to common food.');">⁹</span>

הכי קאמר

- [He replied,] This is what it means: Even though he had the purpose in view to render himself fit to partake of common food he is forbidden to eat Second Tithe.

אע"פ שהוחזק לחולין אסור למעשר

He raised this further objection: If he immersed himself but did not have any purpose in view, it is as if he had not immersed himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hag. 18b.');">⁸</span>

איתיביה

Presumably it means: It is as if he had not immersed himself at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably because the intention was wanting. Hence it is essential to have the proper intention even with regard to common food.');">⁹</span>

טבל ולא הוחזק כאילו לא טבל

- No, it means: It is as if he had not immersed himself for Second Tithe but he has certainly immersed himself for common food.

מאי לאו כאילו לא טבל כלל

Now he [Raba] thought that R'Nahman merely intended to point out a possible refutation; he accordingly went and searched, and found [the following Baraitha]: If he immersed himself and had no purpose in view, he is fit to eat common food but not Second Tithe.

לא כאילו לא טבל למעשר אבל טבל לחולין

Abaye said to R'Joseph.

הוא סבר דיחויי קא מדחי ליה

Shall we say that this [last Baraitha] is a refutation of R'Johanan's view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who stated above that the accidental immersion of a menstruous woman will not render her clean even for 'common' matters, whereas the above mentioned Baraitha states that an immersion without any special intention is valid with regard to 'common' food.');">¹⁰</span>

נפק דק ואשכח דתניא

- He replied.

טבל ולא הוחזק מותר לחולין ואסור למעשר

R'Johanan will concur with the view expressed by R'Jonathan B'Joseph.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף

For it was taught: R'Jonathan B'Joseph says: It is written: And it shall be washed [the second time].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIII, 58. It is laid down that a garment containing a leprous spot must be locked away for seven days, and on the seventh day must be examined by a priest. If it is then found that the spot has remained stationary and has not spread over a greater surface, the garment must then be washed and locked away for a further seven days, at the end of which period it must be examined again by the priest. If it is now found that the infection has left, the garment must be washed a second time (here meaning: the ritual immersion in a mikweh) and it is then declared to be clean.');">¹¹</span>

לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרבי יוחנן מהא

Now what does 'the second time' teach us?

א"ל

We must compare the washing on the second occasion with the washing on the first occasion; as the latter must be intentional<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is written, ibid. 54. Then the priest shall command that they wash etc. The washing must be done at the express command of the priest.');">¹²</span>

רבי יוחנן הוא דאמר כרבי יונתן בן יוסף

so the washing on the second occasion shall be intentional.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence this Tanna holds that the immersion must be intentional, even in respect of common matters, and so is in agreement with R. Johanan.');">¹³</span>

דתניא

But then it should follow, should it not, that as the washing on the first occasion must be by order of the priest, so shall the washing on the second occasion be by order of the priest?

רבי יונתן בן יוסף אומר

It is therefore written: 'And it shall be clean', all circumstances.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even though the immersion was not carried out by the order of the priest, provided it was intentional, the garment becomes clean.');">¹⁴</span>

(ויקרא יג, נח) וכובס מה ת"ל שנית

But did R'Johanan really say this?

מקיש תכבוסת שניה לתכבוסת ראשונה מה תכבוסת ראשונה לדעת אף תכבוסת שניה לדעת

Surely R'Johanan has stated that the halachah is always in accordance with the view of an anonymous<big><b>MISHNAH:</b></big>

אי מה להלן בעינן דעת כהן אף כאן בעינן דעת כהן

And we have learnt: IF A KNIFE FELL DOWN AND SLAUGHTERED [AN ANIMAL].

ת"ל

EVEN THOUGH IT SLAUGHTERED IT IN THE PROPER WAY, THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID.

(ויקרא יג, נח) וטהר מכל מקום

And we argued the point thus: '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]'.

מתקיף לה רב שימי בר אשי

And we asked: 'Who is the Tanna that holds that the intention to slaughter [according to ritual] is not essential? ' And Raba said: 'It is R'Nathan'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The halachah, therefore, should be in accordance with this anonymous Mishnah, namely, that the intention to slaughter according to ritual is not essential; but this is contrary to R. Johanan's view.');">¹⁵</span>

ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי

- With regard to shechitah even R'Jonathan B'Joseph<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And likewise R. Johanan.');">¹⁶</span>

והאמר רבי יוחנן

would concede [that the intention is not essential]; for inasmuch as the Divine Law has expressly laid down that an act performed incidentally in connection with consecrated animals is invalid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 59.');">¹⁷</span>

הלכה כסתם משנה

it follows that with regard to 'common' things the intention is not essential And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who declared the slaughtering invalid where a person threw a knife and it happened to slaughter an animal, supra p. 165.');">¹⁸</span>

ותנן

- [They will say:] Granted that with regard to 'common' animals It is not essential to have the intention to slaughter [according to ritual], but it is essential to have an intention to cut.

נפלה סכין ושחטה אע"פ ששחטה כדרכה פסולה

In this matter, said Raba, R'Nathan triumphed over the Rabbis.

והוינן בה

For is there ever written: 'And thou shalt cut? ' It is written: 'And thou shalt slaughter'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 21.');">¹⁹</span>

טעמא דנפלה הא הפילה הוא כשרה ואע"ג דלא מיכוין

Therefore, if it is essential to have the intention to cut, it is also essential to have the intention to slaughter [according to ritual], and if it is not essential to have the inten to slaughter [according to ritual], then it is not even essential to have the intention to cut.

ואמרינן

How did it happen that the menstruous woman accidentally immersed herself?

מאן תנא דלא בעי כוונה לשחיטה

Shall we say that another woman pushed her [into a mikweh] and she thus immersed herself?

אמר רבא

But surely the intention of the other woman is a perfect intention! Moreover, [in such a case] she would even be allowed to eat terumah! For we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nid. 13b.');">²⁰</span>

רבי נתן היא

If a woman was a deaf-mute or an imbecile or blind or not conscious [and she immersed herself], provided there were present women of sound mind to prepare everything for her, she may eat terumah! - R'Papa said: According to R'Nathan [it happened thus:] She fell from a bridge;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into the sea and thus immersed herself. This corresponds with R. Nathan's view that with regard to shechitah there is not even required the intention to cut or to deal with the animal at all. Here the woman did not even have the intention to be in the water.');">²¹</span>

בשחיטה אפילו רבי יונתן בן יוסף

according to the Rabbis [it happened thus:] She went down [into the sea] to cool herself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She intended to be in the water but not to immerse herself ritually; corresponding to the view of the Rabbis that with regard to shechitah there must be the intention to cut, but not necessarily the intention to slaughter according to ritual.');">²²</span>

מדגלי רחמנא מתעסק בקדשים פסול מכלל דחולין לא בעינן כוונה

Raba said: If a person while slaughtering the Red Cow, slaughtered at the same time another animal, according to all views the Red Cow is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 155: 'If they do any other work at the same time, they render it invalid.'');">²³</span>

ורבנן

נהי דלא בעינן כוונה לזביחה לחתיכה בעינן

אמר רבא

בהא זכנהו רבי נתן לרבנן מי כתיב וחתכת

(דברים יב, כא) וזבחת כתיב אי בעינן כוונה לחתיכה אפילו לזביחה נמי ליבעי אי לא בעינן כוונה לזביחה לחתיכה נמי לא ליבעי

היכי דמי נדה שנאנסה וטבלה

אילימא דאנסה חבירתה ואטבלה כוונה דחברתה כוונה מעלייתא היא

ועוד בתרומה נמי אכלה דתנן

החרשת והשוטה והסומא ושנטרפה דעתה אם יש להן פקחות מתקנות אותן אוכלות בתרומה

א"ר פפא

לר' נתן שנפלה מן הגשר ולרבנן שירדה להקר:

אמר רבא

שחט פרה ושחט בהמה אחרת עמה לדברי הכל פסולה