1) SLAUGHTER WITH AN ATTACHED KNIFE

(a) Question: The two clauses of the Beraisa contradict each other!
(b) Answer: The slaughter is invalid when the knife was always attached; it is Kosher when the knife was originally detached and later attached.
(c) (Beraisa): If one slaughters with a (knife on a) wheel, it is Kosher.
(d) Contradiction (Beraisa): The slaughter is invalid.
(e) Answer #1: It is valid on a potter’s wheel (since a person makes it spin), it is invalid on a wheel turned by water.
(f) Answer #2: Both discuss a water wheel – it is Kosher if it was direct Ko’ach (the knife slaughtered right after the person released the water to start turning the wheel), it is invalid if it was secondary Ko’ach (it slaughtered later).
1. (Rav Papa): Reuven tied up Shimon and directed water onto him, killing him – Reuven is liable for murder, for his action killed him.
i. This is only if his direct Ko’ach killed; if not, he only *caused* the death, he is exempt.
(g) (Rebbi): “He took the knife” – this teaches that slaughter requires a detached knife.
(h) Question (Rav): How is this learned from the verse?
(i) Response (R. Chiya): Indeed, the verse does not teach like Rebbi says!
1. Question: If so, what does the verse teach?
2. Answer: It teaches the zealousness of Avraham (he took a knife with him).
2) SOMETHING DETACHED AND LATER ATTACHED.
(a) (Rava): I am sure that something detached that was later attached is considered detached regarding idolatry;
1. It was taught, if one worships his own house, it is forbidden.
2. If a house was considered attached, it would not become forbidden – “Their gods *on* the mountains”, but the mountains (or anything else attached) are not (forbidden like) their gods.
(b) Regarding Hechsher (produce is Mekabel Tum’ah if water that was willingly detached falls on it), Tana’im argue whether or not it is considered attached.
1. (Mishnah): If a man placed a bowl on a wall in order that the bowl should get wet, and water fell on it, the water is Ki Yutan (it is Machshir any produce it will touch);
2. If he placed a bowl so the wall should not get wet, water that falls on the bowl is not Ki Yutan.
3. Question: The first clause says, if he wanted the bowl to get wet, the water is Ki Yutan – we infer, if he wanted the wall to get wet, the water is not Ki Yutan;
i. The second clause says, if he didn’t want the wall to get wet, the water is not Ki Yutan – we infer, if he wanted the wall to get wet, the water would be Ki Yutan!
4. Answer #1 (R. Elazar): We must say, different Tana’im taught the two clauses.
5. Answer #2 (Rav Papa): One Tana taught both. The first clause speaks of a wall of a cave (it was never detached, so it is considered attached); the second clause speaks of a wall that was built (the rocks were once detached, so it is considered detached).
6. The Mishnah teaches, if he wanted the bowl to get wet, the water is Ki Yutan – we infer, if he wanted the wall to get wet, the water is not Ki Yutan;
i. This applies to a wall of a cave; regarding a built wall, if he didn’t want the wall to get wet, the water is not Ki Yutan – we infer, if he wanted the wall to get wet, the water would be Ki Yutan!
16b—————————————16b

(c) Question (Rava): If an instrument for slaughtering was detached and then attached, may it be used for slaughter?
(d) Answer #1 (Beraisa): If a rock jut out from the wall, or a reed grew on its own and one slaughtered with it, it is invalid.
(e) Rejection: We cannot learn from there – the Beraisa discusses a wall of a cave, the rock was never detached.
1. Support: Presumably, this case resembles the case taught with it, a reed that grew on its own (and was never detached).
(f) Answer #2 (Beraisa): If he stuck a knife in the wall and slaughtered, it is Kosher.
(g) Rejection: That is different – he will not leave the knife permanently in the wall.
(h) Answer #3 (Beraisa): If one slaughters with something attached to the ground, it is Kosher.
(i) Rejection: Perhaps this also refers to the case of the knife; the next clause of the Beraisa (about the knife) is the explanation of this clause.
1. The Beraisa says, ‘What is the case of slaughter with something attached to the ground (which is Kosher)? A knife, something a person does not leave in the wall.’
(j) (Beraisa): If he stuck a knife in the wall and slaughtered, it is Kosher.
(k) (Rav Anan): This is only if the knife was above the neck, but if the knife was below the neck, we are concerned that the neck pressed on the knife, and the slaughter is invalid (this is Drasah).
(l) Question: But the Beraisa (15B 3:f:1) permits, whether the knife is above the neck or below it!
(m) Answer #1 (Rav Zvid): Each of these applies in a different case.
1. If the knife is below and the neck is above – the knife must be detached;
2. If the knife is above and the neck is below – the knife can even be attached.
(n) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): The Beraisa discusses a bird, which is light – there is no concern that its neck will press.
3) REEDS
(a) (Rav Chisda): Five laws were said regarding reeds:
1. They are not used to slaughter, nor to circumcise, nor to cut meat, nor to clean one’s teeth, nor to clean oneself (after eliminating).
(b) Question: They are not used to slaughter – but a Beraisa teaches, we may slaughter with anything – a rock, glass or reed!
(c) Answer (Rav Papa): Only a Simona reed (a hard species) may be used.
(d) We do not cut meat with reeds – Rav Papa would cut fish innards, for they are clear (if a chip falls off, it will be seen); Rabah bar Rav Huna would cut fowl, for it is soft (chips will not fall off).
(e) Question: One does not use reeds to clean oneself (after eliminating) – we already know this!
1. It was taught – one who cleans himself with something that burns easily, his (anal) teeth all out!
(f) Answer: Rather, Rav Chisda meant that we do not clean a wound with reeds.
4) SLAUGHTER IN THE WILDERNESS
(a) (Mishnah): All slaughter, we always slaughter.
(b) All slaughter – this means, all *is slaughtered*, even fowl.
(c) Question: Which Tana taught ‘We always slaughter’?
(d) Answer #1 (Rabah): R. Yishmael.
1. (Beraisa – R. Yishmael): “When Hash-m will widen your border…and you will say, I want to eat meat” – the verse comes to permit (Chulin) meat that one desires to eat.
2. In the Midbar, Chulin meat was forbidden; when Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael, it was permitted; after they were exiled, one might have thought that it is again prohibited – therefore, the Mishnah teaches that we may slaughter even nowadays.
(e) Question #1 (Rav Yosef): If so, why does the Mishnah say ‘We always slaughter’? It should say, ‘We always slaughter *and eat*’ (this is the Chidush)!
(f) Question #2 (Rav Yosef): Initially, Chulin was forbidden because Yisrael were close to the Mishkan (one who wanted to eat would bring a Korban);
1. Later, Chulin was permitted because they were far from the Mishkan.
2. All the more so, in exile, one cannot bring a Korban, Chulin should be permitted (there is no need to teach this!)