POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Chulin 31
CHULIN 31 - This Daf has been sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Shalom Kelman of
Baltimore, Maryland, USA. May Hashem bless them with long years filled
with Torah, Chidushei Torah, and Nachas!
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.
2) SLAUGHTER WITHOUT INTENTION
(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.
(e) Answer: R. Yonah designated all the dirt of the valley to
be the lower cover for the blood.
2. Rejection: One must put dirt underneath before
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
(f) (Mishnah): If he slaughtered and chopped off the head...
(g) (R. Zeira): The knife must extend the length of the neck
(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
1. Question: What does the Mishnah mean by 'one neck's
(j) (Mishnah): This applies when he only cut in one
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.
(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
(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.
(a) (Mishnah): If a knife fell and slaughtered, even if it
slaughtered properly, it is invalid.
3) INTENT NEEDED FOR "TAHARAH"
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
(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;
(e) Question: Rava established another unauthored Mishnah
like R. Noson - why did he have to do so twice?
2. Chachamim say, it is invalid.
3. (Ushaya Ze'ira): The Halachah follows R. Noson.
1. (Mishnah): If a deaf person, lunatic or minor
slaughtered with others looking on, it is valid.
(f) Answer: We could not learn from one to the other.
2. Question: Who is this Tana, who does not require
intent to slaughter?
3. Answer (Rava): It is R. Noson.
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
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.
(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
(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;
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.
(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;
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.
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
(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.
(m) Question (Abaye): This Beraisa refutes R. Yochanan!
2. (Beraisa): If a man immersed without intention, he
is Tahor regarding Chulin, but may not eat Ma'aser.
(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!
(o) Question (Rav Simi bar Ashi): But R. Yochanan said that
the Halachah always follows an unauthored Mishnah!
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.
1. (Mishnah): If a knife fell and slaughtered, even
properly, the slaughter is invalid.
(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.
2. Inference: It is invalid because it fell - had he
cast it down, it would be Kosher, even though he had
i. Question: Who is the Tana of our Mishnah, who
says that no intent is needed for slaughter?
ii. Answer (Rava): R. Noson.
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
(r) Question: What is the case of a Nidah immersing against
1. Suggestion: Rachel forcibly put Leah in a Mikveh.
(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.
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).