Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 28, 2018 | 讻壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讟

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Chullin 31

讙讬讚驻讬 讚诪讬驻专诪讬

that the feathers at the front of the neck were unraveled by the arrow, a clear indication that slaughter was performed from the front of the neck.

讜讛讗 讘注讬 讻住讜讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诪讻住讜 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛砖讜讞讟 爪专讬讱 砖讬转谉 注驻专 诇诪讟讛 讜注驻专 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻住讛讜 讘注驻专 注驻专 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘注驻专 诪诇诪讚 砖讛砖讜讞讟 爪专讬讱 砖讬转谉 注驻专 诇诪讟讛 讜注驻专 诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara notes another difficulty encountered in the slaughter of a flying bird with an arrow. But doesn鈥檛 the bird鈥檚 blood require covering with earth? And if you would say that Rabbi Yona bar Ta岣ifa covers the blood, but doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira say that Rav says: In fulfilling the mitzva of covering the blood, one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or bird must place earth beneath the blood and earth above it, as it is stated: 鈥淗e shall spill its blood, and cover it in earth鈥 (Leviticus 17:13). It is not stated: Cover it with earth, but rather 鈥渋n earth.鈥 This teaches that one who slaughters must place earth beneath the blood and earth above the blood, so that the blood will be within the earth.

讚诪讝诪讬谉 诇讬讛 诇注驻专 讚讻讜诇讛 驻转拽讗

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yona bar Ta岣ifa would designate for himself the earth of the entire valley [patka] before shooting the arrow. That earth would serve as the layer of earth beneath the blood and he would proceed to cover the blood with another layer of earth.

讛讬讛 砖讜讞讟 讜讛转讬讝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讜讞讜抓 诇爪讜讗专

搂 The mishna teaches: In a case where one was in the process of slaughtering the animal in the standard manner and he decapitated the animal in one motion, if the length of the knife is equivalent to the breadth of the animal鈥檚 entire neck, the slaughter is valid. Rabbi Zeira says: The knife must be equivalent to the breadth of the animal鈥檚 entire neck and extend beyond the neck.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讜讞讜抓 诇爪讜讗专 讻诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讚讛讜讜 诇讛 转专讬 爪讜讗专讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讜讞讜抓 诇爪讜讗专 诪砖讛讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did Rabbi Zeira mean: Equivalent to the breadth of the animal鈥檚 entire neck and extend beyond the neck by an amount equivalent to the breadth of the entire neck, in which case the length of the knife would equal the breadth of two necks? Or perhaps he meant: Equivalent to the breadth of the entire neck and beyond the neck by any amount?

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 砖讜讞讟 讜讛转讬讝 砖谞讬 专讗砖讬谉 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗诐 讬砖 诇住讻讬谉 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讗讞讚 讻砖专 诪讗讬 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讗讞讚 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讗讞讚 讜转讜 诇讗 讛砖转讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讗讞转 讘注讬谞谉 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讜讞讜抓 诇爪讜讗专 讘砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 住讙讬 诇讛讜 讻诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讗讞讚 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讞讜抓 诇砖谞讬 爪讜讗专讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof to resolve the dilemma from the continuation of the mishna: If one was in the process of slaughtering two animals simultaneously, and he decapitated two heads in one motion, if the length of the knife is equivalent to the breadth of an entire neck of one of the animals the slaughter is valid. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: The breadth of an entire neck of one of the animals? If we say that it means the breadth of one entire neck and nothing more, that is difficult. Now, for the slaughter of one animal, we require that the knife be equivalent to the breadth of the animal鈥檚 entire neck and extend beyond the neck; for the slaughter of two animals, is it possible that a knife whose length is equivalent to the breadth of one animal鈥檚 entire neck would be sufficient? Rather, it is obvious that it means that the length of the knife must be equivalent to the breadth of one entire neck beyond the breadth of two necks.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讞讜抓 诇爪讜讗专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Learn from the mishna that Rabbi Zeira means that the length of the knife must be equivalent to the breadth of the animal鈥檚 entire neck and extend beyond the neck by the breadth of the entire neck. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this was Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 intent.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜诇讬讱 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讛 讘讗讬讝诪诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽专谞讬诐

搂 The mishna continues: In what case is this statement said? It is when one drew the knife back and did not draw it forth, or drew it forth and did not draw it back. But if he drew it back and forth, even if the knife was of any length, even if he slaughtered with a scalpel, the slaughter is valid. Rav Menashe said: This is the halakha in the case of a scalpel that does not have protrusions from the sides. If there are protrusions, since the scalpel is short, there is concern that the corners may perforate the simanim or enter between the simanim and invalidate the slaughter.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 诪谞砖讛 诪讞讟讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讞讟讗 诪讘讝注 讘讝注

Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Menashe: What is the halakha with regard to slaughter with a needle? Rav Menashe said to him: A needle pierces the simanim, as it perforates the neck instead of cutting it.

诪讞讟讗 讚讗讜砖讻驻讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讞讟讗 讚讗讜砖讻驻讬 诇讗 讗讬讝诪诇 讗讬讝诪诇 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 诪讗讬 讻诇 砖讛讜 讗讬讝诪诇

Rav A岣 then asked Rav Menashe: What is the halakha with regard to slaughtering with a cobbler鈥檚 needle, which is flat and has sharp sides? Rav Menashe said to him: We already learn in the mishna: Even if the knife was of any length, the slaughter is valid. What, is it not referring to slaughter with a cobbler鈥檚 needle? The Gemara responds: No. The reference is to slaughtering with a scalpel, which is larger than a cobbler鈥檚 needle. The Gemara objects: The tanna teaches the case of a scalpel explicitly in the mishna. Therefore, the phrase in the mishna: A knife of any length, must be referring to an item smaller than a scalpel. The Gemara explains: The subsequent mention of the scalpel is explaining the phrase: Even if the knife was of any length. What is the knife of any length with which slaughter is valid? It is a scalpel.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讞讟讗 讚讗讜砖讻驻讬 讛砖转讗 诪讞讟讗 讚讗讜砖讻驻讬 砖专讬讗 讗讬讝诪诇 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗讬讝诪诇 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讙讝专 讗讬讝诪诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽专谞讬诐 讗讟讜 讗讬讝诪诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽专谞讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

This too stands to reason, as, if it enters your mind that the phrase: A knife of any length, is referring to a cobbler鈥檚 needle, now that it is permitted to slaughter with a cobbler鈥檚 needle, is it necessary for the tanna to teach that it is permitted to slaughter with a scalpel, which is larger than a cobbler鈥檚 needle? The Gemara rejects that reasoning: It is necessary for the mishna to teach both the case of a cobbler鈥檚 needle and the case of a scalpel, as it could enter your mind to say that it is prohibited to slaughter with a scalpel even though it is permitted to slaughter with a cobbler鈥檚 needle. The reasoning for this distinction would be: Let the Sages issue a decree prohibiting the use of a scalpel with no protrusions due to the prohibition against using a scalpel with protrusions. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that there is no decree and it is permitted to slaughter with a scalpel that has no protrusions.

诪转谞讬壮 谞驻诇讛 住讻讬谉 讜砖讞讟讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖讞讟讛 讻讚专讻讛 驻住讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讝讘讞转 讜讗讻诇转 诪讛 砖讗转讛 讝讜讘讞 讗转讛 讗讜讻诇

MISHNA: If a knife fell and slaughtered an animal, although the knife slaughtered the animal in the standard manner, the slaughter is not valid, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall slaughter鈥nd you shall eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:7), from which it is derived: That which you slaughter you may eat, and that which was slaughtered on its own, you may not eat.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚谞驻诇讛 讛讗 讛驻讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讻砖专讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a knife fell and slaughtered an animal the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara notes: The reason the slaughter is not valid is that the knife fell. But by inference, if one dropped the knife the slaughter is valid, and that is the halakha even though when dropping the knife he did not intend to slaughter the animal.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜讜谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讝注讬专讗 讚诪谉 讞讘专讬讗 讝专拽 住讻讬谉 诇谞讜注爪讛 讘讻讜转诇 讜讛诇讻讛 讜砖讞讟讛 讻讚专讻讛 专讘讬 谞转谉 诪讻砖讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬诐 讛讜讗 转谞讬 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 谞转谉

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that we do not require intent for slaughter? Rava said: It is Rabbi Natan, as Oshaya, the youngest of the company of Sages, taught a baraita: If one threw a knife to embed it in the wall and in the course of its flight the knife went and slaughtered an animal in its proper manner, Rabbi Natan deems the slaughter valid and the Rabbis deem the slaughter not valid. Oshaya teaches the baraita and he says about it: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan that there is no need for intent to perform a valid act of slaughter.

讜讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚转谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖砖讞讟讜 讜讗讞专讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖讞讬讟转谉 讻砖专讛 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rava already say it one time that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan? As we learned in a mishna (2a): And with regard to any of them, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, who slaughtered an animal and others see and supervise them, their slaughter is valid even though they are incapable of intent. And we said: Who is the tanna who holds that we do not require intent for slaughter? And Rava said: It is Rabbi Natan.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇砖讜诐 讞转讬讻讛 讘注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: Both statements are necessary. As had Rava taught us his statement there with regard to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, one would have thought that the slaughter is valid due to the fact that although the individual lacks intent to slaughter the animal, he intends his action for the sake of cutting in general. But here, with regard to throwing a knife at the wall, where he does not intend to cut at all, say no, the slaughter is not valid.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗转讬 诪讻讞 讘谉 讚注转 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚诇讗 拽讗转讬 诪讻讞 讘谉 讚注转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And had Rava taught us his statement here with regard to throwing the knife, one would have thought that the slaughter is valid is due to the fact that it comes due to the action of a mentally competent person. But there, with regard to slaughter by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, where the slaughter does not come due to the action of a mentally competent person, say that the slaughter is not valid. Therefore, it is necessary for Rava to teach both cases.

讗转诪专 谞讚讛 砖谞讗谞住讛 讜讟讘诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讟讛讜专讛 诇讘讬转讛 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 诇讘讬转讛 诇讗 讟讛专讛

搂 The mishna is now cited as proof in an amoraic dispute. It was stated: With regard to a menstruating woman who, after the menstrual flow ended, was compelled against her will and immersed in a ritual bath, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: She is ritually pure vis-脿-vis her house, i.e., it is permitted for her to engage in intercourse with her husband, but it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma because the immersion is not considered valid for that purpose. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: She was not purified even vis-脿-vis her house.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讟讛讜专讛 诇讘讬转讛 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 注讜谉 讻专转 讛讜转专讛 讗讬住讜专 诪讬转讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: According to the opinion of Rav, who says that she is ritually pure vis-脿-vis her house but it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma, it is difficult. With regard to a transgression punishable by karet, i.e., intercourse with a menstruating woman, she was rendered permitted by immersion against her will; with regard to partaking of teruma, a prohibition punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, which is a lesser punishment, is it necessary to say that it is permitted for her through immersion against her will? Why then does Rav deem it prohibited for her to partake of teruma?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讜讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛 讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚转谞谉 讙诇 砖谞转诇砖 讜讘讜 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜谞驻诇 注诇 讛讗讚诐 讜注诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讚诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻诇讬诐 诪讛 讻诇讬诐 讚诇讗 诪讬讻讜讜谞讬 讗祝 讗讚诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛

Rav Na岣an said to him: The halakhic status of her husband is non-sacred, and non-sacred items do not require intent for purification. And from where do you say so? It is as we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 5:6): In the case of a wave that was detached from the sea, and in it were forty se鈥檃 of water, and that wave fell on an impure person or on impure vessels, they are ritually pure. What, is it not that a person is similar to vessels? Just as vessels do not intend to be purified and they are purified by the wave, so too, a person does not require intent in order to be purified.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讘讬讜砖讘 讜诪爪驻讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诪转讬 讬转诇砖 讛讙诇

The Gemara rejects that proof: From where is there proof that this is the meaning of the mishna? Perhaps we are dealing with the case of one who sits near the water and waits to determine when the wave will be detached, which is tantamount to having intent to immerse,

讜讻诇讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讗讚诐 诪讛 讗讚诐 讚讘注讬谞谉 讻讜讜谞讛 讗祝 讻诇讬诐 谞诪讬 讚拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 诇讛讜 讗讚诐

and vessels are similar to a person: Just as for a person, we require his intent for purification, so too for vessels, they are purified only in a case where a person intends for them to be purified.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘讬讜砖讘 讜诪爪驻讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗

And if you would say: If the mishna is referring to the case of one who sits and waits to determine when the wave will be detached, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? It is obvious and introduces no novel element.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 讞专讚诇讬转 砖诇 讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讬讙讝专 专讗砖讬谉 讗讟讜 讻讬驻讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

The Gemara responds that there is a novel element in this halakha. Lest you say: Let us issue a decree that a detached wave does not effect purification due to the concern that otherwise, one would receive the mistaken impression that one is purified in a cascade [岣rdalit] of rainwater containing forty se鈥檃. The halakha is that rainwater purifies only when pooled in one place. Alternatively, let us issue a decree that the edges of the waves, which are in contact with the ground, are ineffective in purifying people and vessels standing on the ground due to the concern that otherwise one would receive the mistaken impression that vessels are purified even if one pushes them upward into the arc of the waves while the water remains airborne. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that we do not issue either of those decrees.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚诇讗 诪讟讘诇讬谞谉 讘讻讬驻讬谉 讚转谞谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讘专讗砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讘讻讬驻讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讘讗讜讬专

And from where do you say that we do not immerse in the arcs of waves? As we learned in a baraita: One may immerse in the edges of waves, but one may not immerse in their arcs, as one may not immerse in air. Immersion may be performed only on the ground.

讗诇讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛 诪讬讛讗 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞谉 驻讬专讜转 砖谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 讜驻砖讟 诪讬 砖讬讚讬讜 讟诪讗讜转 讜谞讟诇谉 讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讜驻讬专讜转 讗讬谞谉 讘讻讬 讬转谉

The Gemara again asks: But in any event, from where do we derive that non-sacred items do not require intent? The Gemara answers: It is as we learned in a mishna (Makhshirin 4:7): Produce becomes susceptible to ritual impurity only if it is dampened by one of seven liquids and its owner was amenable to its dampening. This is derived from the verse: 鈥淏ut when water is placed on the seed, and some of their carcass shall fall on it, it is impure to you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38). If produce fell into a stream, and one whose hands were ritually impure extended his hands and took the produce from the water channel, his hands are ritually pure through immersion in the stream, and this produce is not in the category of: 鈥淏ut when water is placed.鈥 The produce is not susceptible to ritual impurity because the owner did not intend that his hands become wet.

讜讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讜讚讞讜 讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讜驻讬专讜转 讘讻讬 讬转谉

But if he placed his hands into the stream so that his hands would be rinsed and purified, his hands are ritually pure, and the produce is in the category of: 鈥淏ut when water is placed.鈥 Since he was amenable to the dampening of his hands, the water on his hands renders the produce susceptible to ritual impurity. From the first case in the mishna it is clear that his hands are purified even though his intent was not to immerse them in the water.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讟讘诇 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛讜讞讝拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专 诇诪注砖专 讛讜讞讝拽 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 诇讗

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from a mishna (岣giga 18b): If one immersed for the purpose of eating non-sacred food and assumed the presumptive status of ritual purity for non-sacred food, it is prohibited for him to partake of second-tithe produce. The Gemara infers: If one assumed the presumptive status of ritual purity with regard to non-sacred food, yes, it is permitted for him to eat non-sacred food; if he did not assume the presumptive status, he may not eat non-sacred food. This indicates that even when immersing in order to partake of non-sacred food, one must intend to assume the presumptive status of ritual purity.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讞讝拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专 诇诪注砖专

Rav Na岣an rejects the proof from the mishna and says that no intent is required to assume the presumptive status of ritual purity in order to eat non-sacred food. Rather, this is what the mishna is saying: Although he assumes the presumptive status of ritual purity for non-sacred food, it is prohibited for him to partake of second-tithe produce.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 讻诇诇

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from that same mishna: If one immersed without intent to assume the presumptive status of ritual purity, it is as though he did not immerse. What, is the meaning of the mishna not that it is as though he did not immerse at all?

诇讗 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 诇诪注砖专 讗讘诇 讟讘诇 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 住讘专 讚讬讞讜讬讬 拽讗 诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞讬讗 讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 诪讜转专 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗住讜专 诇诪注砖专

Rav Na岣an rejects that proof as well. No, it means that if he immersed without intent it is as though he did not immerse to partake of second-tithe produce, but in that case, he immersed for non-sacred food, for which no intent is necessary. The Gemara comments: Rava believed that Rav Na岣an was merely putting him off with his claim that the formulation of the mishna does not conclusively support his objection; he believed that Rav Na岣an was not stating the real meaning of the mishna. Rava then went out, examined the sources, and discovered that it is taught in a baraita explicitly in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an: If one immersed and had no intent to assume the presumptive status of ritual purity, it is permitted for him to eat non-sacred food, but it is prohibited for him to partake of second-tithe produce.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛讗

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let us say that there will be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from this baraita. This baraita states that immersion without intent is effective for non-sacred items, while Rabbi Yo岣nan said (31a) that if a woman who is impure due to menstruation immerses without intent she is forbidden to her husband, who is non-sacred.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讬讜住祝

Rav Yosef said to him: Indeed, the baraita is contrary to his opinion, but Rabbi Yo岣nan is saying his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讬讜住祝 讗讜诪专 讜讻讘住 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖谞讬转 诪拽讬砖 转讻讘讜住转 砖谞讬讛 诇转讻讘讜住转 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讛 转讻讘讜住转 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讚注转 讗祝 转讻讘讜住转 砖谞讬讛 诇讚注转

As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse dealing with the purification of a leprous garment, which must be laundered, quarantined for a week, and then immersed in a ritual bath: 鈥淎nd the garment鈥hat you shall wash and the leprosy departed from them, and it shall be washed a second time and shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 13:58). Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says: It would have been sufficient for the verse to simply state: And it shall be washed and shall be pure. For what purpose does the verse state: 鈥淎 second time鈥? The Torah juxtaposes the second washing, the immersion, with the first washing, the laundering. Just as the first washing is performed with intent, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall command that they wash the garment that has the leprous mark, and he shall quarantine it seven days more鈥 (Leviticus 13:54), so too, the second washing, the immersion in a ritual bath, must be performed with intent.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 讻讛谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 讻讛谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讟讛专 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

If so, based on the same juxtaposition, perhaps derive: Just as there, with regard to the first washing, we require the intent of a priest, who commands to wash the garment, so too here, with regard to the second washing, we require the intent of a priest. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 13:58), indicating that there is purity in any case where there is intent, even without a command from a priest. In the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef, even the immersion of the non-sacred garment must be performed with intent. Rav Yosef states that Rabbi Yo岣nan bases his statement on Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef鈥檚 opinion.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛

Rav Shimi bar Ashi objects to the association of the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan say that immersion of a non-sacred garment requires intent? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that the halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna?

讜转谞谉 谞驻诇讛 住讻讬谉 讜砖讞讟讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖讞讟讛 讻讚专讻讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚谞驻诇讛 讛讗 讛驻讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讻砖专讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讬讗

And we learned in the mishna: If a knife fell and slaughtered an animal, although the knife slaughtered the animal in the standard manner, the slaughter is not valid. And we discussed it: The reason the slaughter is not valid is that the knife fell. But by inference, if one dropped the knife the slaughter is valid, and that is the ruling even though when dropping the knife he did not intend to slaughter the animal. And we say: Who is the tanna who holds that we do not require intent for slaughter? Rava said: It is Rabbi Natan. Based on his principle that the halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna, Rabbi Yo岣nan should rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan cited in the unattributed mishna, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef.

讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讬讜住祝 诪讚讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 诪转注住拽 讘拽讚砖讬诐 驻住讜诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜讜谞讛

The Gemara answers: With regard to slaughter, even Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef concedes that intent is not necessary. He learns this from the fact that the Merciful One revealed that if one acts unawares in performing the slaughter of sacrificial animals, with no intent to slaughter, the offering is disqualified. This is derived (13a) from the verse: 鈥淵ou shall slaughter it to your will鈥 (Leviticus 19:5). By inference, conclude that with regard to the slaughter of non-sacred animals we do not require intent.

讜专讘谞谉 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜讜谞讛 诇讝讘讬讞讛 诇讞转讬讻讛 讘注讬谞谉

While on this subject the Gemara clarifies: And the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Natan and hold that slaughter of non-sacred animals requires intent would say: Although we do not require intent to slaughter non-sacred animals, we require intent to cut the neck of the animal. Throwing the knife down is not sufficient.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讛讗 讝讻谞讛讜 专讘讬 谞转谉 诇专讘谞谉 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讞转讻转 讜讝讘讞转 讻转讬讘 讗讬 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜讜谞讛 诇讞转讬讻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝讘讬讞讛 谞诪讬 诇讬讘注讬 讗讬 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜讜谞讛 诇讝讘讬讞讛 诇讞转讬讻讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬

Rava said that it was with this contention that Rabbi Natan overcame the Rabbis: He said: Is it written with regard to the slaughter of non-sacred animals: And you shall cut? It is written: 鈥淎nd you shall slaughter鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:21). The Torah does not distinguish between cutting and slaughtering; if we require intent for cutting, we should require intent even for slaughtering. Conversely, if we do not require intent for slaughtering, we should also not require intent for cutting.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 谞讚讛 砖谞讗谞住讛 讜讟讘诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗谞住讛 讞讘讬专转讛 讜讗讟讘诇讛 讻讜讜谞讛 讚讞讘专转讛 讻讜讜谞讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara revisits the matter of immersion without intent. What are the circumstances of a menstruating woman who, after the menstrual flow ended, was compelled against her will and immersed in a ritual bath? If we say that another woman compelled her and immersed her in a ritual bath, the immersion should be valid even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as the intent of another woman is full-fledged intent.

讜注讜讚 讘转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讗讻诇讛 讚转谞谉 讛讞专砖转 讜讛砖讜讟讛 讜讛住讜诪讗 讜砖谞讟专驻讛 讚注转讛 讗诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 驻拽讞讜转 诪转拽谞讜转 讗讜转谉 讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛

And furthermore, in that case the immersion enables her to partake of teruma as well, as we learned in a mishna (Nidda 13b): In the case of a woman who is a deaf-mute, or an imbecile, or blind, or who went insane, and is therefore unable to examine herself reliably, if one of these women has a competent friend, that friend prepares her by examining her and immersing them in a ritual bath. And on that basis the incompetent woman may partake of teruma.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讬 谞转谉 砖谞驻诇讛 诪谉 讛讙砖专 讜诇专讘谞谉 砖讬专讚讛 诇讛拽专

Rav Pappa said: According to Rabbi Natan, who does not require intent for the slaughter of non-sacred animals, immersion against her will that renders it permitted for a woman to engage in intercourse with her husband is in a case where she fell from a bridge into a river, with no intent at all. According to the Rabbis, who require intent to cut for slaughter to be valid and intent to enter the water for immersion to be valid, it is referring to a case where she descended into the water to cool herself, with no thought of purification.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讞讟 驻专讛 讜砖讞讟 讘讛诪讛 讗讞专转 注诪讛 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara continues its discussion of the dispute between Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis. Rava said: If one slaughtered a red heifer and in the same action slaughtered another animal together with it, everyone agrees that the red heifer is disqualified.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 31

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 31

讙讬讚驻讬 讚诪讬驻专诪讬

that the feathers at the front of the neck were unraveled by the arrow, a clear indication that slaughter was performed from the front of the neck.

讜讛讗 讘注讬 讻住讜讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诪讻住讜 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛砖讜讞讟 爪专讬讱 砖讬转谉 注驻专 诇诪讟讛 讜注驻专 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻住讛讜 讘注驻专 注驻专 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘注驻专 诪诇诪讚 砖讛砖讜讞讟 爪专讬讱 砖讬转谉 注驻专 诇诪讟讛 讜注驻专 诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara notes another difficulty encountered in the slaughter of a flying bird with an arrow. But doesn鈥檛 the bird鈥檚 blood require covering with earth? And if you would say that Rabbi Yona bar Ta岣ifa covers the blood, but doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira say that Rav says: In fulfilling the mitzva of covering the blood, one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or bird must place earth beneath the blood and earth above it, as it is stated: 鈥淗e shall spill its blood, and cover it in earth鈥 (Leviticus 17:13). It is not stated: Cover it with earth, but rather 鈥渋n earth.鈥 This teaches that one who slaughters must place earth beneath the blood and earth above the blood, so that the blood will be within the earth.

讚诪讝诪讬谉 诇讬讛 诇注驻专 讚讻讜诇讛 驻转拽讗

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yona bar Ta岣ifa would designate for himself the earth of the entire valley [patka] before shooting the arrow. That earth would serve as the layer of earth beneath the blood and he would proceed to cover the blood with another layer of earth.

讛讬讛 砖讜讞讟 讜讛转讬讝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讜讞讜抓 诇爪讜讗专

搂 The mishna teaches: In a case where one was in the process of slaughtering the animal in the standard manner and he decapitated the animal in one motion, if the length of the knife is equivalent to the breadth of the animal鈥檚 entire neck, the slaughter is valid. Rabbi Zeira says: The knife must be equivalent to the breadth of the animal鈥檚 entire neck and extend beyond the neck.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讜讞讜抓 诇爪讜讗专 讻诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讚讛讜讜 诇讛 转专讬 爪讜讗专讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讜讞讜抓 诇爪讜讗专 诪砖讛讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did Rabbi Zeira mean: Equivalent to the breadth of the animal鈥檚 entire neck and extend beyond the neck by an amount equivalent to the breadth of the entire neck, in which case the length of the knife would equal the breadth of two necks? Or perhaps he meant: Equivalent to the breadth of the entire neck and beyond the neck by any amount?

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 砖讜讞讟 讜讛转讬讝 砖谞讬 专讗砖讬谉 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗诐 讬砖 诇住讻讬谉 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讗讞讚 讻砖专 诪讗讬 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讗讞讚 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讗讞讚 讜转讜 诇讗 讛砖转讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讗讞转 讘注讬谞谉 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讜讞讜抓 诇爪讜讗专 讘砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 住讙讬 诇讛讜 讻诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讗讞讚 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讞讜抓 诇砖谞讬 爪讜讗专讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof to resolve the dilemma from the continuation of the mishna: If one was in the process of slaughtering two animals simultaneously, and he decapitated two heads in one motion, if the length of the knife is equivalent to the breadth of an entire neck of one of the animals the slaughter is valid. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: The breadth of an entire neck of one of the animals? If we say that it means the breadth of one entire neck and nothing more, that is difficult. Now, for the slaughter of one animal, we require that the knife be equivalent to the breadth of the animal鈥檚 entire neck and extend beyond the neck; for the slaughter of two animals, is it possible that a knife whose length is equivalent to the breadth of one animal鈥檚 entire neck would be sufficient? Rather, it is obvious that it means that the length of the knife must be equivalent to the breadth of one entire neck beyond the breadth of two necks.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讞讜抓 诇爪讜讗专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Learn from the mishna that Rabbi Zeira means that the length of the knife must be equivalent to the breadth of the animal鈥檚 entire neck and extend beyond the neck by the breadth of the entire neck. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this was Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 intent.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜诇讬讱 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讛 讘讗讬讝诪诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽专谞讬诐

搂 The mishna continues: In what case is this statement said? It is when one drew the knife back and did not draw it forth, or drew it forth and did not draw it back. But if he drew it back and forth, even if the knife was of any length, even if he slaughtered with a scalpel, the slaughter is valid. Rav Menashe said: This is the halakha in the case of a scalpel that does not have protrusions from the sides. If there are protrusions, since the scalpel is short, there is concern that the corners may perforate the simanim or enter between the simanim and invalidate the slaughter.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 诪谞砖讛 诪讞讟讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讞讟讗 诪讘讝注 讘讝注

Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Menashe: What is the halakha with regard to slaughter with a needle? Rav Menashe said to him: A needle pierces the simanim, as it perforates the neck instead of cutting it.

诪讞讟讗 讚讗讜砖讻驻讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讞讟讗 讚讗讜砖讻驻讬 诇讗 讗讬讝诪诇 讗讬讝诪诇 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 诪讗讬 讻诇 砖讛讜 讗讬讝诪诇

Rav A岣 then asked Rav Menashe: What is the halakha with regard to slaughtering with a cobbler鈥檚 needle, which is flat and has sharp sides? Rav Menashe said to him: We already learn in the mishna: Even if the knife was of any length, the slaughter is valid. What, is it not referring to slaughter with a cobbler鈥檚 needle? The Gemara responds: No. The reference is to slaughtering with a scalpel, which is larger than a cobbler鈥檚 needle. The Gemara objects: The tanna teaches the case of a scalpel explicitly in the mishna. Therefore, the phrase in the mishna: A knife of any length, must be referring to an item smaller than a scalpel. The Gemara explains: The subsequent mention of the scalpel is explaining the phrase: Even if the knife was of any length. What is the knife of any length with which slaughter is valid? It is a scalpel.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讞讟讗 讚讗讜砖讻驻讬 讛砖转讗 诪讞讟讗 讚讗讜砖讻驻讬 砖专讬讗 讗讬讝诪诇 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗讬讝诪诇 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讙讝专 讗讬讝诪诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽专谞讬诐 讗讟讜 讗讬讝诪诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽专谞讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

This too stands to reason, as, if it enters your mind that the phrase: A knife of any length, is referring to a cobbler鈥檚 needle, now that it is permitted to slaughter with a cobbler鈥檚 needle, is it necessary for the tanna to teach that it is permitted to slaughter with a scalpel, which is larger than a cobbler鈥檚 needle? The Gemara rejects that reasoning: It is necessary for the mishna to teach both the case of a cobbler鈥檚 needle and the case of a scalpel, as it could enter your mind to say that it is prohibited to slaughter with a scalpel even though it is permitted to slaughter with a cobbler鈥檚 needle. The reasoning for this distinction would be: Let the Sages issue a decree prohibiting the use of a scalpel with no protrusions due to the prohibition against using a scalpel with protrusions. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that there is no decree and it is permitted to slaughter with a scalpel that has no protrusions.

诪转谞讬壮 谞驻诇讛 住讻讬谉 讜砖讞讟讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖讞讟讛 讻讚专讻讛 驻住讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讝讘讞转 讜讗讻诇转 诪讛 砖讗转讛 讝讜讘讞 讗转讛 讗讜讻诇

MISHNA: If a knife fell and slaughtered an animal, although the knife slaughtered the animal in the standard manner, the slaughter is not valid, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall slaughter鈥nd you shall eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:7), from which it is derived: That which you slaughter you may eat, and that which was slaughtered on its own, you may not eat.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚谞驻诇讛 讛讗 讛驻讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讻砖专讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a knife fell and slaughtered an animal the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara notes: The reason the slaughter is not valid is that the knife fell. But by inference, if one dropped the knife the slaughter is valid, and that is the halakha even though when dropping the knife he did not intend to slaughter the animal.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜讜谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讝注讬专讗 讚诪谉 讞讘专讬讗 讝专拽 住讻讬谉 诇谞讜注爪讛 讘讻讜转诇 讜讛诇讻讛 讜砖讞讟讛 讻讚专讻讛 专讘讬 谞转谉 诪讻砖讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬诐 讛讜讗 转谞讬 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 谞转谉

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that we do not require intent for slaughter? Rava said: It is Rabbi Natan, as Oshaya, the youngest of the company of Sages, taught a baraita: If one threw a knife to embed it in the wall and in the course of its flight the knife went and slaughtered an animal in its proper manner, Rabbi Natan deems the slaughter valid and the Rabbis deem the slaughter not valid. Oshaya teaches the baraita and he says about it: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan that there is no need for intent to perform a valid act of slaughter.

讜讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚转谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖砖讞讟讜 讜讗讞专讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖讞讬讟转谉 讻砖专讛 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rava already say it one time that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan? As we learned in a mishna (2a): And with regard to any of them, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, who slaughtered an animal and others see and supervise them, their slaughter is valid even though they are incapable of intent. And we said: Who is the tanna who holds that we do not require intent for slaughter? And Rava said: It is Rabbi Natan.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇砖讜诐 讞转讬讻讛 讘注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: Both statements are necessary. As had Rava taught us his statement there with regard to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, one would have thought that the slaughter is valid due to the fact that although the individual lacks intent to slaughter the animal, he intends his action for the sake of cutting in general. But here, with regard to throwing a knife at the wall, where he does not intend to cut at all, say no, the slaughter is not valid.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗转讬 诪讻讞 讘谉 讚注转 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚诇讗 拽讗转讬 诪讻讞 讘谉 讚注转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And had Rava taught us his statement here with regard to throwing the knife, one would have thought that the slaughter is valid is due to the fact that it comes due to the action of a mentally competent person. But there, with regard to slaughter by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, where the slaughter does not come due to the action of a mentally competent person, say that the slaughter is not valid. Therefore, it is necessary for Rava to teach both cases.

讗转诪专 谞讚讛 砖谞讗谞住讛 讜讟讘诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讟讛讜专讛 诇讘讬转讛 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 诇讘讬转讛 诇讗 讟讛专讛

搂 The mishna is now cited as proof in an amoraic dispute. It was stated: With regard to a menstruating woman who, after the menstrual flow ended, was compelled against her will and immersed in a ritual bath, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: She is ritually pure vis-脿-vis her house, i.e., it is permitted for her to engage in intercourse with her husband, but it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma because the immersion is not considered valid for that purpose. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: She was not purified even vis-脿-vis her house.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讟讛讜专讛 诇讘讬转讛 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 注讜谉 讻专转 讛讜转专讛 讗讬住讜专 诪讬转讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: According to the opinion of Rav, who says that she is ritually pure vis-脿-vis her house but it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma, it is difficult. With regard to a transgression punishable by karet, i.e., intercourse with a menstruating woman, she was rendered permitted by immersion against her will; with regard to partaking of teruma, a prohibition punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, which is a lesser punishment, is it necessary to say that it is permitted for her through immersion against her will? Why then does Rav deem it prohibited for her to partake of teruma?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讜讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛 讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚转谞谉 讙诇 砖谞转诇砖 讜讘讜 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜谞驻诇 注诇 讛讗讚诐 讜注诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讚诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻诇讬诐 诪讛 讻诇讬诐 讚诇讗 诪讬讻讜讜谞讬 讗祝 讗讚诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛

Rav Na岣an said to him: The halakhic status of her husband is non-sacred, and non-sacred items do not require intent for purification. And from where do you say so? It is as we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 5:6): In the case of a wave that was detached from the sea, and in it were forty se鈥檃 of water, and that wave fell on an impure person or on impure vessels, they are ritually pure. What, is it not that a person is similar to vessels? Just as vessels do not intend to be purified and they are purified by the wave, so too, a person does not require intent in order to be purified.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讘讬讜砖讘 讜诪爪驻讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诪转讬 讬转诇砖 讛讙诇

The Gemara rejects that proof: From where is there proof that this is the meaning of the mishna? Perhaps we are dealing with the case of one who sits near the water and waits to determine when the wave will be detached, which is tantamount to having intent to immerse,

讜讻诇讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讗讚诐 诪讛 讗讚诐 讚讘注讬谞谉 讻讜讜谞讛 讗祝 讻诇讬诐 谞诪讬 讚拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 诇讛讜 讗讚诐

and vessels are similar to a person: Just as for a person, we require his intent for purification, so too for vessels, they are purified only in a case where a person intends for them to be purified.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘讬讜砖讘 讜诪爪驻讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗

And if you would say: If the mishna is referring to the case of one who sits and waits to determine when the wave will be detached, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? It is obvious and introduces no novel element.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 讞专讚诇讬转 砖诇 讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讬讙讝专 专讗砖讬谉 讗讟讜 讻讬驻讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

The Gemara responds that there is a novel element in this halakha. Lest you say: Let us issue a decree that a detached wave does not effect purification due to the concern that otherwise, one would receive the mistaken impression that one is purified in a cascade [岣rdalit] of rainwater containing forty se鈥檃. The halakha is that rainwater purifies only when pooled in one place. Alternatively, let us issue a decree that the edges of the waves, which are in contact with the ground, are ineffective in purifying people and vessels standing on the ground due to the concern that otherwise one would receive the mistaken impression that vessels are purified even if one pushes them upward into the arc of the waves while the water remains airborne. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that we do not issue either of those decrees.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚诇讗 诪讟讘诇讬谞谉 讘讻讬驻讬谉 讚转谞谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讘专讗砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讘讻讬驻讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讘讗讜讬专

And from where do you say that we do not immerse in the arcs of waves? As we learned in a baraita: One may immerse in the edges of waves, but one may not immerse in their arcs, as one may not immerse in air. Immersion may be performed only on the ground.

讗诇讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛 诪讬讛讗 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞谉 驻讬专讜转 砖谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 讜驻砖讟 诪讬 砖讬讚讬讜 讟诪讗讜转 讜谞讟诇谉 讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讜驻讬专讜转 讗讬谞谉 讘讻讬 讬转谉

The Gemara again asks: But in any event, from where do we derive that non-sacred items do not require intent? The Gemara answers: It is as we learned in a mishna (Makhshirin 4:7): Produce becomes susceptible to ritual impurity only if it is dampened by one of seven liquids and its owner was amenable to its dampening. This is derived from the verse: 鈥淏ut when water is placed on the seed, and some of their carcass shall fall on it, it is impure to you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38). If produce fell into a stream, and one whose hands were ritually impure extended his hands and took the produce from the water channel, his hands are ritually pure through immersion in the stream, and this produce is not in the category of: 鈥淏ut when water is placed.鈥 The produce is not susceptible to ritual impurity because the owner did not intend that his hands become wet.

讜讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讜讚讞讜 讬讚讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讜驻讬专讜转 讘讻讬 讬转谉

But if he placed his hands into the stream so that his hands would be rinsed and purified, his hands are ritually pure, and the produce is in the category of: 鈥淏ut when water is placed.鈥 Since he was amenable to the dampening of his hands, the water on his hands renders the produce susceptible to ritual impurity. From the first case in the mishna it is clear that his hands are purified even though his intent was not to immerse them in the water.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讟讘诇 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛讜讞讝拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专 诇诪注砖专 讛讜讞讝拽 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 诇讗

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from a mishna (岣giga 18b): If one immersed for the purpose of eating non-sacred food and assumed the presumptive status of ritual purity for non-sacred food, it is prohibited for him to partake of second-tithe produce. The Gemara infers: If one assumed the presumptive status of ritual purity with regard to non-sacred food, yes, it is permitted for him to eat non-sacred food; if he did not assume the presumptive status, he may not eat non-sacred food. This indicates that even when immersing in order to partake of non-sacred food, one must intend to assume the presumptive status of ritual purity.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讞讝拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专 诇诪注砖专

Rav Na岣an rejects the proof from the mishna and says that no intent is required to assume the presumptive status of ritual purity in order to eat non-sacred food. Rather, this is what the mishna is saying: Although he assumes the presumptive status of ritual purity for non-sacred food, it is prohibited for him to partake of second-tithe produce.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 讻诇诇

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from that same mishna: If one immersed without intent to assume the presumptive status of ritual purity, it is as though he did not immerse. What, is the meaning of the mishna not that it is as though he did not immerse at all?

诇讗 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇 诇诪注砖专 讗讘诇 讟讘诇 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 住讘专 讚讬讞讜讬讬 拽讗 诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞讬讗 讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 诪讜转专 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗住讜专 诇诪注砖专

Rav Na岣an rejects that proof as well. No, it means that if he immersed without intent it is as though he did not immerse to partake of second-tithe produce, but in that case, he immersed for non-sacred food, for which no intent is necessary. The Gemara comments: Rava believed that Rav Na岣an was merely putting him off with his claim that the formulation of the mishna does not conclusively support his objection; he believed that Rav Na岣an was not stating the real meaning of the mishna. Rava then went out, examined the sources, and discovered that it is taught in a baraita explicitly in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an: If one immersed and had no intent to assume the presumptive status of ritual purity, it is permitted for him to eat non-sacred food, but it is prohibited for him to partake of second-tithe produce.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛讗

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let us say that there will be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from this baraita. This baraita states that immersion without intent is effective for non-sacred items, while Rabbi Yo岣nan said (31a) that if a woman who is impure due to menstruation immerses without intent she is forbidden to her husband, who is non-sacred.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讬讜住祝

Rav Yosef said to him: Indeed, the baraita is contrary to his opinion, but Rabbi Yo岣nan is saying his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讬讜住祝 讗讜诪专 讜讻讘住 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖谞讬转 诪拽讬砖 转讻讘讜住转 砖谞讬讛 诇转讻讘讜住转 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讛 转讻讘讜住转 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讚注转 讗祝 转讻讘讜住转 砖谞讬讛 诇讚注转

As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse dealing with the purification of a leprous garment, which must be laundered, quarantined for a week, and then immersed in a ritual bath: 鈥淎nd the garment鈥hat you shall wash and the leprosy departed from them, and it shall be washed a second time and shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 13:58). Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says: It would have been sufficient for the verse to simply state: And it shall be washed and shall be pure. For what purpose does the verse state: 鈥淎 second time鈥? The Torah juxtaposes the second washing, the immersion, with the first washing, the laundering. Just as the first washing is performed with intent, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall command that they wash the garment that has the leprous mark, and he shall quarantine it seven days more鈥 (Leviticus 13:54), so too, the second washing, the immersion in a ritual bath, must be performed with intent.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 讻讛谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 讻讛谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讟讛专 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

If so, based on the same juxtaposition, perhaps derive: Just as there, with regard to the first washing, we require the intent of a priest, who commands to wash the garment, so too here, with regard to the second washing, we require the intent of a priest. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 13:58), indicating that there is purity in any case where there is intent, even without a command from a priest. In the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef, even the immersion of the non-sacred garment must be performed with intent. Rav Yosef states that Rabbi Yo岣nan bases his statement on Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef鈥檚 opinion.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛

Rav Shimi bar Ashi objects to the association of the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan say that immersion of a non-sacred garment requires intent? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that the halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna?

讜转谞谉 谞驻诇讛 住讻讬谉 讜砖讞讟讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖讞讟讛 讻讚专讻讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚谞驻诇讛 讛讗 讛驻讬诇讛 讛讜讗 讻砖专讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜讜谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讬讗

And we learned in the mishna: If a knife fell and slaughtered an animal, although the knife slaughtered the animal in the standard manner, the slaughter is not valid. And we discussed it: The reason the slaughter is not valid is that the knife fell. But by inference, if one dropped the knife the slaughter is valid, and that is the ruling even though when dropping the knife he did not intend to slaughter the animal. And we say: Who is the tanna who holds that we do not require intent for slaughter? Rava said: It is Rabbi Natan. Based on his principle that the halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna, Rabbi Yo岣nan should rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan cited in the unattributed mishna, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef.

讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 讬讜住祝 诪讚讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 诪转注住拽 讘拽讚砖讬诐 驻住讜诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜讜谞讛

The Gemara answers: With regard to slaughter, even Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef concedes that intent is not necessary. He learns this from the fact that the Merciful One revealed that if one acts unawares in performing the slaughter of sacrificial animals, with no intent to slaughter, the offering is disqualified. This is derived (13a) from the verse: 鈥淵ou shall slaughter it to your will鈥 (Leviticus 19:5). By inference, conclude that with regard to the slaughter of non-sacred animals we do not require intent.

讜专讘谞谉 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜讜谞讛 诇讝讘讬讞讛 诇讞转讬讻讛 讘注讬谞谉

While on this subject the Gemara clarifies: And the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Natan and hold that slaughter of non-sacred animals requires intent would say: Although we do not require intent to slaughter non-sacred animals, we require intent to cut the neck of the animal. Throwing the knife down is not sufficient.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讛讗 讝讻谞讛讜 专讘讬 谞转谉 诇专讘谞谉 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讞转讻转 讜讝讘讞转 讻转讬讘 讗讬 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜讜谞讛 诇讞转讬讻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝讘讬讞讛 谞诪讬 诇讬讘注讬 讗讬 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜讜谞讛 诇讝讘讬讞讛 诇讞转讬讻讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬

Rava said that it was with this contention that Rabbi Natan overcame the Rabbis: He said: Is it written with regard to the slaughter of non-sacred animals: And you shall cut? It is written: 鈥淎nd you shall slaughter鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:21). The Torah does not distinguish between cutting and slaughtering; if we require intent for cutting, we should require intent even for slaughtering. Conversely, if we do not require intent for slaughtering, we should also not require intent for cutting.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 谞讚讛 砖谞讗谞住讛 讜讟讘诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗谞住讛 讞讘讬专转讛 讜讗讟讘诇讛 讻讜讜谞讛 讚讞讘专转讛 讻讜讜谞讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara revisits the matter of immersion without intent. What are the circumstances of a menstruating woman who, after the menstrual flow ended, was compelled against her will and immersed in a ritual bath? If we say that another woman compelled her and immersed her in a ritual bath, the immersion should be valid even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as the intent of another woman is full-fledged intent.

讜注讜讚 讘转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讗讻诇讛 讚转谞谉 讛讞专砖转 讜讛砖讜讟讛 讜讛住讜诪讗 讜砖谞讟专驻讛 讚注转讛 讗诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 驻拽讞讜转 诪转拽谞讜转 讗讜转谉 讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛

And furthermore, in that case the immersion enables her to partake of teruma as well, as we learned in a mishna (Nidda 13b): In the case of a woman who is a deaf-mute, or an imbecile, or blind, or who went insane, and is therefore unable to examine herself reliably, if one of these women has a competent friend, that friend prepares her by examining her and immersing them in a ritual bath. And on that basis the incompetent woman may partake of teruma.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讬 谞转谉 砖谞驻诇讛 诪谉 讛讙砖专 讜诇专讘谞谉 砖讬专讚讛 诇讛拽专

Rav Pappa said: According to Rabbi Natan, who does not require intent for the slaughter of non-sacred animals, immersion against her will that renders it permitted for a woman to engage in intercourse with her husband is in a case where she fell from a bridge into a river, with no intent at all. According to the Rabbis, who require intent to cut for slaughter to be valid and intent to enter the water for immersion to be valid, it is referring to a case where she descended into the water to cool herself, with no thought of purification.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讞讟 驻专讛 讜砖讞讟 讘讛诪讛 讗讞专转 注诪讛 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara continues its discussion of the dispute between Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis. Rava said: If one slaughtered a red heifer and in the same action slaughtered another animal together with it, everyone agrees that the red heifer is disqualified.

Scroll To Top