## Chullin Daf 31b

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

וְכֵלִים דּוּמְיָא דְּאָדָם, מָה אָדָם דְּבָעֵינַן כַּוָּונָה, אַף כֵּלִים נָמֵי דְּקָא מְכַוֵּין לְהוּ אָדָם!

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


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

וְכִי תֵּימָא, בְּיוֹשֵׁב וּמְצַפֶּה, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא?

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


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

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לִיגְזַר מִשּׁוּם חַרְדָּלִית שֶׁל גְּשָׁמִים, אִי נָמֵי לִיגְזַר רָאשִׁין אַטּוּ כִּיפִּין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא גָּזְרִינַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 [*ḥardalit*] of rainwater** containing forty *se’a*. 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.**


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

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּלָא מַטְבְּלִינַן בְּכִיפִּין? דִּתְנַן: מַטְבִּילִין בְּרָאשִׁין, וְאֵין מַטְבִּילִין בְּכִיפִּין, שֶׁאֵין מַטְבִּילִין בָּאֲוִיר.

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


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

אֶלָּא חוּלִּין דְּלָא בָּעֵי כַּוָּונָה מִיהָא מְנָלַן? דִּתְנַן: פֵּירוֹת שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ אַמַּת הַמַּיִם, וּפָשַׁט מִי שֶׁיָּדָיו טְמֵאוֹת וּנְטָלָן – יָדָיו טְהוֹרוֹת, וּפֵירוֹת אֵינָן בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: “But when water is placed on the seed, and some of their carcass shall fall on it, it is impure to you” (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: “But **when** water **is placed.”** The produce is not susceptible to ritual impurity because the owner did not intend that his hands become wet.


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

וְאִם בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיּוּדְחוּ יָדָיו – טְהוֹרוֹת, וּפֵירוֹת בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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: “But **when** water **is placed.”** 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.


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

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: טָבַל לְחוּלִּין וְהוּחְזַק לְחוּלִּין – אָסוּר לְמַעֲשֵׂר. הוּחְזַק – אִין, לֹא הוּחְזַק – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman** from a mishna (*Ḥagiga* 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.


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

הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּחְזַק לְחוּלִּין – אָסוּר לְמַעֲשֵׂר.

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


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

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: טָבַל וְלֹא הוּחְזַק – כְּאִילּוּ לֹא טָבַל. מַאי לָאו: כְּאִילּוּ לֹא טָבַל כְּלָל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **raised an objection to** Rav Naḥman 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?**


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

לָא, כְּאִילּוּ לֹא טָבַל לְמַעֲשֵׂר, אֲבָל טָבַל לְחוּלִּין. הוּא סָבַר: דַּיחוֹיֵי קָא מְדַחֵי לֵיהּ. נְפַק דָּק וְאַשְׁכַּח, דְּתַנְיָא: טָבַל וְלֹא הוּחְזַק – מוּתָּר לַחוּלִּין וְאָסוּר לַמַּעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman 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 Naḥman **was** merely **putting him off** with his claim that the formulation of the mishna does not conclusively support his objection; he believed that Rav Naḥman 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 Naḥman: 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.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵהָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let us say that** there **will be a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan from this** *baraita*. This *baraita* states that immersion without intent is effective for non-sacred items, while Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן יוֹסֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef **said to him:** Indeed, the *baraita* is contrary to his opinion, but **Rabbi Yoḥanan is saying** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef.**


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

דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן יוֹסֵף אוֹמֵר: ״וְכוּבַּס״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שֵׁנִית״? מַקִּישׁ תִּכְבּוֹסֶת שְׁנִיָּה לְתִכְבּוֹסֶת רִאשׁוֹנָה: מָה תִּכְבּוֹסֶת רִאשׁוֹנָה לְדַעַת, אַף תִּכְבּוֹסֶת שְׁנִיָּה לְדַעַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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: “And the garment…that you shall wash and the leprosy departed from them, and it shall be washed a second time and shall be pure” (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: “A second time”?** 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: “And the priest shall command that they wash the garment that has the leprous mark, and he shall quarantine it seven days more” (Leviticus 13:54), **so too, the second washing,** the immersion in a ritual bath, must be performed **with intent.**


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

אִי מָה לְהַלָּן בָּעֵינַן דַּעַת כֹּהֵן, אַף כָּאן בָּעֵינַן דַּעַת כֹּהֵן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְטָהֵר״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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: “And shall be pure”** (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 Yoḥanan bases his statement on Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef’s opinion.


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כִּסְתַם מִשְׁנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Ashi objects to** the association of the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef: **Did Rabbi Yoḥanan say that** immersion of a non-sacred garment requires intent? **But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say** that **the *halakha* is in accordance with an unattributed mishna?**


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

וּתְנַן: נָפְלָה סַכִּין וְשָׁחֲטָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁחֲטָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ – פְּסוּלָה. וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: טַעְמָא דְּנָפְלָה, הָא הִפִּילָהּ הוּא – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מִיכַּוֵּין. וְאָמְרִינַן: מַאן תַּנָּא דְּלָא בָּעֵי כַּוָּונָה לִשְׁחִיטָה? אָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי נָתָן הִיא.

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


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

בִּשְׁחִיטָה, אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן יוֹסֵף [מוֹדֵי], מִדְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא מִתְעַסֵּק בְּקָדָשִׁים פָּסוּל – מִכְּלָל דְּחוּלִּין לָא בָּעֵינַן כַּוָּונָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: “You shall slaughter it to your will” (Leviticus 19:5). **By inference,** conclude that with regard to the slaughter **of non-sacred** animals **we do not require intent.**


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

וְרַבָּנַן, נְהִי דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן כַּוָּונָה לִזְבִיחָה, לַחֲתִיכָה בָּעֵינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: בְּהָא זְכָנְהוּ רַבִּי נָתָן לְרַבָּנַן, מִי כְּתִיב ״וְחָתַכְתָּ״? ״וְזָבַחְתָּ״ כְּתִיב, אִי בָּעֵינַן כַּוָּונָה לַחֲתִיכָה – אֲפִילּוּ לִזְבִיחָה נָמֵי לִיבְעֵי, אִי לָא בָּעֵינַן כַּוָּונָה לִזְבִיחָה – לַחֲתִיכָה נָמֵי לָא לִיבְעֵי.

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


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

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי נִדָּה שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה וְטָבְלָה? אִילֵימָא דְּאַנְסַהּ חֲבִירְתַּהּ וְאַטְבְּלַהּ, כַּוָּונָה דַּחֲבִרְתַּהּ כַּוָּונָה מְעַלַּיְיתָא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 Yoḥanan, as **the intent of another** woman **is full-fledged intent.**


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

וְעוֹד, בִּתְרוּמָה נָמֵי אָכְלָה, דִּתְנַן: הַחֵרֶשֶׁת, וְהַשּׁוֹטָה, וְהַסּוֹמָא, וְשֶׁנִּטְרְפָה דַּעְתָּהּ, אִם יֵשׁ לָהֶן פִּקְּחוֹת מְתַקְּנוֹת אוֹתָן – אוֹכְלוֹת בִּתְרוּמָה.

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


###### Chullin 31b:22
[Chullin 31b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31b:22)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְרַבִּי נָתָן, שֶׁנָּפְלָה מִן הַגֶּשֶׁר, וּלְרַבָּנַן, שֶׁיָּרְדָה לְהָקֵר.

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


###### Chullin 31b:23
[Chullin 31b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/31b:23)

אָמַר רָבָא: שָׁחַט פָּרָה וְשָׁחַט בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת עִמָּהּ, לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה.

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