## Chullin Daf 31a

###### Chullin 31a:1
[Chullin 31a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:1)

גִּידְפֵי דְּמִיפַּרְמִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 31a:2
[Chullin 31a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:2)

וְהָא בָּעֵי כִּסּוּי, וְכִי תֵּימָא דִּמְכַסּוּ לֵיהּ, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: הַשּׁוֹחֵט צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּתֵּן עָפָר לְמַטָּה וְעָפָר לְמַעְלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְכִסָּהוּ בֶּעָפָר״, ״עָפָר״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״בֶּעָפָר״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּתֵּן עָפָר לְמַטָּה וְעָפָר לְמַעְלָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes another difficulty encountered in the slaughter of a flying bird with an arrow. **But doesn’t** the bird’s blood **require covering** with earth? **And if you would say that** Rabbi Yona bar Taḥlifa **covers** the blood, **but doesn’t 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:** “He shall spill its blood, **and cover it in earth”** (Leviticus 17:13). **It is not stated:** Cover it with **earth, but rather “in earth**.” 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.


###### Chullin 31a:3
[Chullin 31a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:3)

דְּמַזְמֵין לֵיהּ לְעָפָר דְּכוּלַּהּ פִּתְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers **that** Rabbi Yona bar Taḥlifa 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.


###### Chullin 31a:4
[Chullin 31a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:4)

הָיָה שׁוֹחֵט וְהִתִּיז, אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מְלֹא צַוָּאר וְחוּץ לַצַּוָּאר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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’s entire neck, the slaughter is valid. **Rabbi Zeira says:** The knife must be equivalent to **the** breadth of the animal’s **entire neck and** extend **beyond the neck.**


###### Chullin 31a:5
[Chullin 31a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:5)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מְלֹא צַוָּאר וְחוּץ לַצַּוָּאר כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר, דַּהֲווֹ לַהּ תְּרֵי צַוָּארֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא מָלֵא צַוָּאר וְחוּץ לַצַּוָּאר מַשֶּׁהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: Did Rabbi Zeira mean: Equivalent to the breadth of the animal’s **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?**


###### Chullin 31a:6
[Chullin 31a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיָה שׁוֹחֵט וְהִתִּיז שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁין בְּבַת אַחַת, אִם יֵשׁ לַסַּכִּין מְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד – כָּשֵׁר. מַאי מְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד? אִילֵּימָא מְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד וְתוּ לָא, הַשְׁתָּא בִּבְהֵמָה אַחַת בָּעֵינַן מְלֹא צַוָּאר וְחוּץ לַצַּוָּאר, בִּשְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת סַגִּי לְהוּ כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא מְלֹא צַוָּאר חוּץ לִשְׁנֵי צַוָּארִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’s **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’s **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.**


###### Chullin 31a:7
[Chullin 31a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:7)

שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, מְלֹא צַוָּאר חוּץ לַצַּוָּאר, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’s 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’s intent.


###### Chullin 31a:8
[Chullin 31a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:8)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוֹלִיךְ וְלֹא הֵבִיא וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב מְנַשֶּׁה: בְּאִיזְמֵל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קַרְנַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Chullin 31a:9
[Chullin 31a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב מְנַשֶּׁה: מַחְטָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַחְטָא מִבְזָע בָּזַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, 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.


###### Chullin 31a:10
[Chullin 31a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:10)

מַחְטָא דְּאוּשְׁכָּפֵי, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנֵינָא ״אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא״. מַאי לָאו מַחְטָא דְּאוּשְׁכָּפֵי? לָא, אִיזְמֵל. אִיזְמֵל בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ! פָּרוֹשֵׁי קָא מְפָרֵשׁ: מַאי ״כׇּל שֶׁהוּ״ – אִיזְמֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Aḥa then asked Rav Menashe: **What is** the *halakha* with regard to slaughtering with **a cobbler’s 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’s needle?** The Gemara responds: **No.** The reference is to slaughtering with **a scalpel,** which is larger than a cobbler’s 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.**


###### Chullin 31a:11
[Chullin 31a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:11)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מַחְטָא דְּאוּשְׁכָּפֵי, הַשְׁתָּא מַחְטָא דְּאוּשְׁכָּפֵי שַׁרְיָא, אִיזְמֵל מִיבַּעְיָא? אִיזְמֵל אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לִיגְזַר אִיזְמֵל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קַרְנַיִם אַטּוּ אִיזְמֵל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קַרְנַיִם, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This too stands to reason, as, if it enters your mind** that the phrase: A knife of any length, is referring to **a cobbler’s needle, now** that it is **permitted** to slaughter with **a cobbler’s needle, is** it **necessary** for the *tanna* to teach that it is permitted to slaughter with **a scalpel,** which is larger than a cobbler’s needle? The Gemara rejects that reasoning: It **is necessary** for the mishna to teach both the case of a cobbler’s 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’s 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.


###### Chullin 31a:12
[Chullin 31a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** נָפְלָה סַכִּין וְשָׁחֲטָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁחֲטָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ – פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְזָבַחְתָּ … וְאָכַלְתָּ״, מַה שֶּׁאַתָּה זוֹבֵחַ אַתָּה אוֹכֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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: “And you shall slaughter…and you shall eat”** (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.


###### Chullin 31a:13
[Chullin 31a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:13)

**גְּמָ׳** טַעְמָא דְּנָפְלָה, הָא הִפִּילָהּ הוּא – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מִיכַּוֵּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 31a:14
[Chullin 31a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:14)

מַאן תַּנָּא דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן כַּוָּונָה לִשְׁחִיטָה? אָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי נָתָן הִיא, דְּתָנֵי אוֹשַׁעְיָא זְעֵירָא דְּמִן חַבְרַיָּא: זָרַק סַכִּין לְנוֹעֳצָהּ בַּכּוֹתֶל, וְהָלְכָה וְשָׁחֲטָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ – רַבִּי נָתָן מַכְשִׁיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִים. הוּא תָּנֵי לַהּ, וְהוּא אָמַר לַהּ: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי נָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 31a:15
[Chullin 31a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:15)

וְהָא אַמְרַהּ רָבָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא, דִּתְנַן: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וַאֲחֵרִים רוֹאִין אוֹתָן – שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאָמְרִינַן: מַאן תַּנָּא דְּלָא בָּעֵי כַּוָּונָה לִשְׁחִיטָה? וְאָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי נָתָן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t 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.**


###### Chullin 31a:16
[Chullin 31a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:16)

צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְועִינַן הָתָם – מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מִיכַּוֵּין לְשׁוּם חֲתִיכָה בְּעוֹלָם, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּלָא קָא מִיכַּוֵּין – אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 31a:17
[Chullin 31a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:17)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָכָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ בֶּן דַּעַת, אֲבָל הָתָם דְּלָא קָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ בֶּן דַּעַת – אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 31a:18
[Chullin 31a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:18)

אִתְּמַר: נִדָּה שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה וְטָבְלָה, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: טְהוֹרָה לְבֵיתָהּ, וַאֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף לְבֵיתָהּ לֹא טָהֲרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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-à-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 Yoḥanan says: She was not purified even vis-à-vis her house.**


###### Chullin 31a:19
[Chullin 31a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:19)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן, לְרַב דְּאָמַר: טְהוֹרָה לְבֵיתָהּ וַאֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה – עֲוֹן כָּרֵת (הוּתְּרָה) [הִתַּרְתָּ], אִיסּוּר מִיתָה מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to Rav Naḥman: According to** the opinion of **Rav, who says** that **she is ritually pure vis-à-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*?


###### Chullin 31a:20
[Chullin 31a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:20)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בַּעְלָהּ חוּלִּין הוּא, וְחוּלִּין לָא בָּעֵי כַּוָּונָה. וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא? דִּתְנַן: גַּל שֶׁנִּתְלַשׁ וּבוֹ אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה וְנָפַל עַל הָאָדָם וְעַל הַכֵּלִים – טְהוֹרִין. מַאי לָאו אָדָם דּוּמְיָא דְּכֵלִים? מָה כֵּלִים דְּלָא מִיכַּוְּונִי, אַף אָדָם נָמֵי לָא בָּעֵי כַּוָּונָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **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’a*** 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.


###### Chullin 31a:21
[Chullin 31a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31a:21)

מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא בְּיוֹשֵׁב וּמְצַפֶּה עָסְקִינַן, אֵימָתַי יִתָּלֵשׁ הַגַּל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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,