Knives and Contraptions: b.Hullin 16

In which we list lots of things you're not allowed to do with the stalk of a reed

Today’s page starts with a new mishna: it is kosher to slaughter with a hand sickle, a flintstone, and a reed stalk. The only instruments disallowed for slaughter are a harvest sickle, a saw, teeth (Steinsaltz thinks they mean the teeth of an animal attached to a jawbone), and a fingernail, because they strangle the animal, rather than slice the gullet and the windpipe.

The Gemara notices the mishna uses the past tense (“one who slaughters”, הַשּׁוֹחֵט) rather than a permission (“one may slaughter”), implying these instruments are only valid after the fact, not ideal choices. Fine for a sickle — you might accidentally use the serrated side. But why would a flint or reed be only after the fact? Inded, they flag a contradicting baraita (urminhi!) which explicitly permits flint and reed ab initio.

This, the Gemara explains, is not difficult (לָא קַשְׁיָא): the mishna refers to blades still attached to the ground (such as a flint still embedded the rock face or a reed still rooted in the soil) whereas the baraita refers to detached blades (כָּאן בְּתָלוּשׁ, כָּאן בִּמְחוּבָּר). According to Rav Kahana, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi invalidates slaughter with an attached blade entirely, even after the fact, while Rabbi Hiyya permits it only after the fact. We end up with this scenario:

The scenario on the right, I should point out, involves a reed that has been detached and reattached (בְּתָלוּשׁ וּלְבַסּוֹף חִיבְּרוֹ. Why would you do such a thing? why?)

Onward: One baraita allows slaughter with a machine (בְּמוּכְנִי) and another forbids it. The two baraitot are reconciled as discussing different mechanisms:

Which brings us to a freaky murder scenario, indicating that Midsomer Murders has nothing on Rav Pappa: Dude ties up Bro and diverts water onto him, and Bro drowns. Dude is culpable if the water that drowned Bro was diverted by him, but not if the death resulted from water that ran on its own. This is a good reminder for me that I should make a video for y’all about causality in the Talmud!

The next one is pretty funny: Rav sits behind Rabbi Hiyya, and Rabbi Hiyya sits before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the following conversation ensues:

Rava gets us back to the issue of the detached/reattached reed thing, by looking at how that situation plays out in other contexts. A house built from quarried stones has the status of detached for purposes of idolatry — so bowing to your own house renders it forbidden as an idol. Attached things (mountains) can never become idols. But in the context of seed purity, a mishna about placing a bowl on a wall to catch rainwater seems internally contradictory. Rabbi Elazar thinks this reflects a dispute between tanna’im about whether a built wall counts as attached or detached; Rav Pappa thinks it’s one tanna, who speaks of a cave wall (always attached) versus a building wall (which is constructed of quarried stones, and thus counts as detached and then reattached).

Mar cites a baraita that says that if you embed a knife in the wall, it’s okay to slaughter with it. Rav Anan cites Shmuel’s qualification: If this contraption is used in the way that the knife is below and the neck of the animal is above, it is only valid when the blade is detached, because if the blade is attached and the animal is above it, the animal’s weight might press rather than cleanly slice through. Rav Pappa says that, for birds, either orientation is okay, because they are too light to cause pressing.

Now Rav Hisda provides a list of five things you may not do with a reed stalk, lest it splinter:

1. Slaughter with it

2. Circumcise with it

3. Cut meat with it

4. Pick your teeth with it

5. Wipe with it (after relieving yourself)

The Gemara challenges #1 with a baraita that allowed slaughter with a reed stalk. Rav Pappa explains that it is only okay to slaughter with a specific marsh read that dries into a smooth, hard surface without splintering. Then, they also challenge #3: Rav Pappa himself cuts fish innards with a reed, because they’re transparent, so splinters would be visible. Rabba bar Rav Huna also uses reeds to cut soft bird meat, which is too soft to cause splintering). Also, in case you were worried about #5: Rav Pappa clarifies the prohibition isn’t about post-toilet wiping (the Gemara notes that’s already prohibited because flammable materials cause rectal damage), but about wiping the opening of a wound. I hope you will adjust your grooming habits accordingly.

Next, the Gemara turns to the language of the mishna that opened the page: “one may always slaughter” (הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין, וּלְעוֹלָם שׁוֹחֲטִין). What is meant by “always”? Rabba ascribes this to Rabbi Yishmael, who says that, as the Israelites were receiving their promised land, they were told that they were now allowed to eat “meat of desire” (rather than sacrifice an offering). The mishnah comes to tell us that, even though we’re back in exile, we’re still allowed “meat of desire”. Rav Yosef disputes this: the permission comes from the fact that, as opposed to the desert, where they could snack off the tabernacle table, they are now distant from it, so if they want meat they should be allowed to kill it. This is even more true now that they are in exile. It is Rabbi Akiva who teaches this mishnah, he explains, to allow slaughtered meat as opposed to “stabbing meat” (בְּשַׂר נְחִירָה) that was allowed in the desert. The root of the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael is that the former thinks that they were eating meat in the desert (non-kosher, no less!) whereas the latter thinks they were not. Various biblical citations are offered in support of each position.