1) THE SIZE OF A KNIFE FOR SLAUGHTER

(a) Rava checked an arrow for R. Yonah bar Tachlifa, who shot it at a bird, slaughtering it.
(b) Question: Perhaps it cut by Chaladah!
(c) Answer: He could see that the feathers were cut – this shows that it was not Chaladah.
(d) Question: One who slaughters a bird must cover the blood!
1. Suggestion: Perhaps he covered it afterwards.
2. Rejection: One must put dirt underneath before slaughtering!
i. (R. Zeira): It does not say ‘He will cover it Afar (dirt)’, rather, “b’Afar (in dirt)” – this teaches that one must put dirt below and above the blood!
(e) Answer: R. Yonah designated all the dirt of the valley to be the lower cover for the blood.
(f) (Mishnah): If he slaughtered and chopped off the head…
(g) (R. Zeira): The knife must extend the length of the neck and further.
(h) Question: Must it extend a second neck’s length past the neck, or is any amount past the neck enough?
(i) Answer (Mishnah): If he slaughtered and chopped off two heads, if the knife extends one neck’s length, it is Kosher.
1. Question: What does the Mishnah mean by ‘one neck’s length’?
i. Suggestion: If it means exactly one neck’s length – how can it be that for one animal, more than one neck’s length is needed, and for two animals, one neck’s length suffices?!
2. Answer: Rather, it means one neck’s length beyond the two necks of the animals.
3. Also R. Zeira meant that it must extend a neck’s length beyond the neck.
(j) (Mishnah): This applies when he only cut in one direction…
(k) (Rav Menasheh): The Mishnah discusses a razor that has no protrusions at the ends.
(l) Question (Rav Acha brei d’Rav Avya): May a needle be used to slaughter?
(m) Answer (Rav Menasheh): No, for it tears.
(n) Question (Rav Acha): May a cutter’s needle be used?
(o) Answer (Rav Menasheh): The Mishnah teaches this, when it says ‘Of any size’.
1. Suggestion: This comes to include a cutter’s needle.
2. Rejection: No, it includes a razor.
3. Question: But the Mishnah explicitly says that a razor may be used!
4. Answer: The Mishnah clarifies what it said – the knife of any size allowed is a razor.
i. Support: Presumably, this is correct – if the Mishnah permits a cutter’s needle, it would not need to teach a razor!
ii. Rejection: No, it must teach a razor. One might have thought, we decree to disqualify a razor on account of razors with protrusions – the Mishnah teaches, this is not so.
2) SLAUGHTER WITHOUT INTENTION
(a) (Mishnah): If a knife fell and slaughtered, even if it slaughtered properly, it is invalid.
1. “You will slaughter and you will eat” – what *you* slaughter, you will eat.
(b) (Gemara): This is only when it falls by itself – but had a person made it fall, it would be a valid slaughter, even though he had no intention!
(c) Question: Who is our Tana, who does not require intent to slaughter?
(d) Answer (Rava): It is R. Noson.
1. (Ushaya Ze’ira – Beraisa – R. Noson): One threw a knife to stick it in a wall, and it slaughtered on the way – the slaughter is valid;
2. Chachamim say, it is invalid.
3. (Ushaya Ze’ira): The Halachah follows R. Noson.
(e) Question: Rava established another unauthored Mishnah like R. Noson – why did he have to do so twice?
1. (Mishnah): If a deaf person, lunatic or minor slaughtered with others looking on, it is valid.
2. Question: Who is this Tana, who does not require intent to slaughter?
3. Answer (Rava): It is R. Noson.
(f) Answer: We could not learn from one to the other.
1. From the Beraisa, we only know that R. Noson is Machshir when the person intended to make an incision of some kind – we would not know that he is Machshir when he threw the knife down without intent to cut;
2. From our Mishnah, we only know that R. Noson permits what was slaughtered by a person of understanding, we would not know that he permits the slaughter of a deaf person, lunatic or minor.
3) INTENT NEEDED FOR “TAHARAH”
(a) (Rav Yehudah): A Nidah was immersed unwillingly – she is permitted to her husband, but forbidden to eat Terumah;
(b) (R. Yochanan): She is forbidden even to her husband.
(c) Question (Rava): Rav permits her to her husband, even though relations with a Nidah is Chayavei Kerisus – all the more so, he should permit her to eat Terumah, for which a Tamei person is only liable to death at the hands of Heaven!
(d) Answer (Rav Nachman): Her husband is Chulin, immersion for Chulin does not require intent.
(e) Question: How do we know this?
(f) Answer #1 (Mishnah): A wave containing 40 Se’ah of water separated from the sea and fell on a person and on vessels – they are Tehorim.

1. Suggestion: Just like the vessels had no intent to become Tehorim, also the person!
(g) Rejection: No, the case is he was waiting for such a wave to fall on him;
31b—————————————31b

1. The vessels are like the man: just like he must intend to become Tahor, also he must intend for his vessels to become Tehorim.
2. Question: If he was waiting for such a wave to fall on him, surely he becomes Tahor, why must the Mishnah teach this?
3. Answer: One might have thought, we decree lest he come to immerse in a channel of rainwater; or lest if he immerses in the end of the wave that touches the ground, he may come to immerse vessels in the middle of the wave in mid-air – the Mishnah teaches, there is no such decree.
4. Question: How do we know that we may not immerse in a wave in mid-air?
5. Answer (Mishnah): We may immerse in waves that reached that ground, not in waves in mid-air, for we do not immerse in air.
(h) Answer #2 (Mishnah): Reuven’s hands were Tamei, and his produce fell into an irrigation channel. He stuck his hands in and took them out – his hands become Tehorim, and the produce is not Huchshar;
1. If he wanted to wash his hands, his hands become Tehorim, and the produce is Huchshar.
(i) Question (Rava – Beraisa): If a man immersed with intention to eat Chulin in Taharah, he becomes Tahor regarding Chulin; he may not eat Ma’aser.
1. This shows that intention is required to become Tahor even for Chulin!
(j) Answer (Rav Nachman): No – the Beraisa teaches, even though he became Tahor regarding Chulin, he may not eat Ma’aser.
(k) Question (Rava – Beraisa): If a man immersed without intention, it is as if he did not immerse.
1. Suggestion: This means, it is as if he did not immerse at all.
(l) Answer (Rav Nachman): No – it is as if he did not immerse regarding Ma’aser, but he became Tahor regarding Chulin.
1. Rava doubted the validity of these answers until he found a Beraisa supporting Rav Nachman.
2. (Beraisa): If a man immersed without intention, he is Tahor regarding Chulin, but may not eat Ma’aser.
(m) Question (Abaye): This Beraisa refutes R. Yochanan!
(n) Answer (Rav Yosef): R. Yochanan holds like another Tana, R. Yonason ben Yosef.
1. (Beraisa – R. Yonason ben Yosef): “The garment will be washed (immersed) *a second time*” – we know this is the second time!
2. This comes to equate the first washing to the second. Just like the first washing requires intention, also the second washing.
i. Suggestion: We should say, just like the first washing requires the Kohen’s intention, also the second washing!
ii. Rejection: “It will become Tahor” – even without the Kohen’s intention.
(o) Question (Rav Simi bar Ashi): But R. Yochanan said that the Halachah always follows an unauthored Mishnah!
1. (Mishnah): If a knife fell and slaughtered, even properly, the slaughter is invalid.
2. Inference: It is invalid because it fell – had he cast it down, it would be Kosher, even though he had no intention!
i. Question: Who is the Tana of our Mishnah, who says that no intent is needed for slaughter?
ii. Answer (Rava): R. Noson.
(p) Answer: Even R. Yonason ben Yosef admits that slaughter (of Chulin) needs no intention – this is deduced from the law that slaughter of *Kodshim* needs intention.
1. Chachamim (that argue on R. Noson) say, we may deduce that (for Chulin) intention to slaughter is not required, but we still need intention to cut.
(q) (Rava): R. Noson’s reasoning is better than Chachamim’s.
1. It says “You will slaughter”, not ‘you will cut’ – if we would need intention, we would need intention to slaughter!
(r) Question: What is the case of a Nidah immersing against her will?
1. Suggestion: Rachel forcibly put Leah in a Mikveh.
2. Rejection: If so, Rachel’s intention would suffice; Leah is even permitted to eat Terumah!
i. (Mishnah): A healthy woman can permit a deaf, insane, or blind woman to eat Terumah (by checking her for Dam Nidah, and immersing her at the proper time).
(s) Answer (Rav Papa): Rather, according to R. Noson, she fell from a bridge; according to Chachamim, she entered the water to cool off and fell in all the way.