M. [16a] These rules are self-contradictory. Rather do we not then derive from them that there is a distinction between [slaughtering with] an object that was attached from the outset and with an object that was detached and then reattached? We do derive this conclusion.
II.1
A. Said the master, “He who slaughters with a spinning blade, his act of slaughter is valid.” But behold it was taught on Tannaite authority, “His act of slaughter is invalid.” There is no contradiction [between these rules]. This one [where it is deemed valid refers to a case where he slaughtered with a knife attached to] a potter's wheel [because a person turns the wheel]. And this one [where it is deemed invalid refers to a case where he slaughtered with a knife attached to] a water wheel [because the action of the water, not of a person, turns the wheel].
B. Another possibility: Both [refer to a case where he slaughtered with a knife attached to a] water wheel. And there is no contradiction [between the rules]. This one [where it is deemed valid refers to a case where the knife slaughtered the animal] with the first force [of water flowing to turn the wheel and this was released by a person]. This one [where it is deemed invalid refers to a case where the knife slaughtered the animal] with the second force [of water flowing to turn the wheel. Any subsequent action after the first revolution cannot be directly attributed to human action].
C. And this accords with R. Pappa said, “A person who tied up his fellow and shot at him a stream of water and he died [from the blast], he is liable. What is the basis for this rule? It is with his arrow that he attacked him.”
D. These words apply to [a case where he killed him] with the first force [of the water]. But [if he killed him with] the second force [or any subsequent blast of the stream we consider this action] a secondary result [of releasing the stream and he is free of liability for the death].
II.2
A. Rab sat behind R. Hiyya and R. Hiyya before Rabbi, and Rabbi sat and said, “How do we know that an act of slaughter must be performed with an object that is detached from the ground?” Because Scripture states, “And he took the knife to slay” (Gen. 22:10).
B. Said Rab to R. Hiyya, “What did he say?” he said to him, “[Nothing important.] Just a line scratched on a log. [Hiyya maintained that one may slaughter with an object attached to the ground.]” [He replied,] “But behold he stated a verse, [that Abraham took the knife in his hand, to prove his assertion].” [He replied,] “The verse demonstrates to us the enthusiasm of Abraham [to perform the will of God and has no value as a precedent].”
II.3
A. Said Raba, “It is obvious to me that an object that was detached from the ground and subsequently reattached, with regard to the prohibitions against idolatry, it is considered as if it were a detached object.”
B. Because the master said, “He who bows down to his house [to worship it] renders it prohibited [for any use].” And if you conclude that it [the house] is considered as if it were an object attached to the ground, [we have a basis in Scripture for permitting its use:] “[The nations... served] their gods, upon the high mountains” (Deut. 12:2) — and the mountains themselves [i.e. the ground or whatever is attached to it] cannot become their gods.
II.4
A. [The rule regarding] the susceptibility [to uncleanness] of grain [that was detached and subsequently reattached] is a dispute between Tannaite authorities. For it was taught on Tannaite authority, He who turns over the bowl and places it on the wall in order that it be washed, lo this is subject to the rule of “If water be put” (Lev. 11:38) [if the water that fell on the bowl ran onto grain]. [If he put the bowl on the wall] so that the wall will not be ruined, [and water ran off it onto grain,] it is not subject to the rule of “If water be put” [M. Maksh. 4:3].
B. Lo, there is a contradiction [between these rules]. It says, in order that it be washed, lo this is subject to the rule of “If water be put” — lo [this implies if he put the bowl on the wall] so that the wall will be washed, it is not subject to the rule of “If water be put.” And it subsequently teaches, [If he put the bowl on the wall] so that the wall will not be ruined, [and water ran off it onto grain,] it is not subject to the rule of “If water be put” — lo [this implies that if he put the bowl on the wall] so that the wall will be washed, it is subject to the rule of “If water be put.”
C. Said R. Eleazar, “Let this be clarified [as follows]: He who taught the one rule did not teach the other rule.”
D. Said R. Pappa, “It was all taught by the same Tanna. This [rule] refers to a case of [a bowl placed on] a wall of a cave. This [rule] refers to a case of [a bowl placed on] a wall of a house.” And this is how you should state matters: He who turns over the bowl and places it on the wall in order that it be washed, lo this is subject to the rule of “If water be put” (Lev. 11:38) [if water that fell on the bowl ran onto grain]. [If he put the bowl on the wall] so that the wall will not be ruined, [and water ran off it onto grain,] it is not subject to the rule of “If water be put” — under what circumstances? With regard to [a bowl placed on] the wall of a cave.
E. But with regard to the wall of a house, [If he put the bowl on the wall] so that the wall will not be ruined, — this [case] is not subject to the rule of “If water be put.” Lo, if [he put the bowl on the wall] in order that it be washed, lo this is subject to the rule of “If water be put.”
II.5
A. Raba posed the following question, [16b] “An object that was detached [from the ground] and subsequently reattached — with regard to the rules of slaughtering — what is its status?”
B. Come and take note: [I.1 L above] If a sharp stone [that was once detached and then stuck back and] was jutting out from a wall, or if a reed was growing up from it, and he slaughtered with it, his act of slaughter is invalid. In that case, what are we dealing with? [There we refer to] the wall of a cave. We may infer this as well from what was taught [“or if a reed was growing up from it”]. [The wall must be] comparable to the reed which comes up [naturally] on its own accord. [The wall must be a natural cave wall.] We may derive this conclusion.
C. Come and take note [I.1 L]: He who lodged a knife in a wall and slaughtered with it, his act of slaughter is valid. A knife is subject to a different rule. He does not disavow it. [He will later reclaim it from the wall.]
D. Come and take note [I.1 L]: [He who slaughters with an object] attached to the ground, his act of slaughter is valid. Perhaps [the text] goes on to clarify this clause [as follows]. What does it mean by “[an object] attached to the ground?” A knife which a person will not disavow. [We have no resolution to the question posed by Raba.]
II.6
A. Said the master [above, I.1 L]: He who lodged a knife in a wall and slaughtered with it, his act of slaughter is valid. Said R. Anan, said Samuel, “They taught this rule only for a case where the knife was above and the neck of the animal was below. But where the knife is below and the neck of the animal is above, we are afraid that perhaps [due to the weight of the animal] he will press [during the act of slaughter and invalidate the act].”
B. But behold it was taught, “[The rule applies] whether the knife is below and the neck of the animal is above, or the knife is above and the neck of the animal is below.” [Cf. T. ul. 1:5 E.]
C. Said R. Zebid, “The matter was taught regarding different sides of the issue. [When it refers to the case of] the knife down below and the neck up above, [it refers to a case of ] a detached knife. [When it refers to the case of] the knife up above and the neck down below, [it refers to a case of even an] attached knife.”
D. R. Pappa said, “[We are dealing here] with a fowl that is light. [Accordingly there is no danger that he will press during the act of slaughter even if the neck of the animal is above the knife.]”
III.1
A. Said R. Hisda, said R. Yitzhak, and some say it was taught in the Mishnah, “Five things were taught concerning the point of a reed: (1) they do not slaughter with it, (2) and they do not circumcise with it, (3) and they do not cut meat with it, (4) and they do not floss teeth with it, (5) and they do not wipe themselves with it. [Because the reed is delicate, it may splinter and cause harm.]”
B. “They do not slaughter with it” — but lo it was taught on Tannaite authority, With anything do they slaughter [M. ul. 1:2 B] — even with a flint, even with glass, even with the point of a reed [T. ul 1:5 A-B]. Said R. Pappa, “[That rule refers to a sturdier reed:] the lake reed.”
III.2
A. “And they do not cut meat with it” — R. Pappa would cut with it fish entrails because they are clear [and if a splinter broke off in them he could see it]. Raba bar R. Huna would cut with it fowl because they are tender [and would not break the reed].
B. “And they do not wipe themselves with it” — we may derive this from that which was stated by the master, “He who wipes himself with something that is flammable [because it is dry and brittle], can tear the ligaments [of the anus (Cashdan)].”
C. Said R. Pappa, “We speak [in that latter teaching] of wiping the opening of a wound [not of normal circumstances].”
IV.1
A. All slaughter. And at any time do they slaughter [M. 1:2 C-D]. All slaughter [implies that] all animals are subject to the rules of slaughter, and even fowl.
B. And at any time do they slaughter. Who is the Tanna that taught this? Said Rabbah, “It is R. Ishmael.” For it was taught on Tannaite authority, “When the Lord your God enlarges your territory, as he has promised you, and you say, `I will eat flesh,' because you crave flesh, you may eat as much flesh as you desire” (Deut. 12:20). Scripture comes to specifically permit them to eat the meat they craved [i.e., from unconsecrated animals, as opposed to the meat of sacrifices]. For at first [when they wandered in the desert] the meat they craved was prohibited to them. When they entered into the land, the meat they craved was permitted to them. And now that they were exiled, it is possible to conclude that they reverted to their original prohibition. Therefore we learned, At any time do they slaughter.
C. R. Joseph posed the following objection: The phrase [reads], At any time do they slaughter. [If we accept your teaching] it should have read, At any time do they slaughter and eat. And furthermore [we may ask by way of objection], originally on what basis were they prohibited [from eating the meat they craved]? Because they had to bring [their animals as sacrifices] to the tabernacle nearby. But later [when they came to the land] on what basis were they permitted [to eat the meat they craved]? Because they were far from the tabernacle. [17a] How much the more so now [after the exile should they be permitted to eat the meat they crave] when they are even further [from the tabernacle].
No comments:
Post a Comment