![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Masechet Chullin Daf 16
Dec. 13th, 2018 03:59 pmDaf 16
At the end of Daf 15 we moved on to a new mishna about the types of blades that can be used for shechita. It's actually surprisingly broad, at least b'dieved. You can shecht with a sharp metal blade, but you can also shecht with a sharpened rock, or a sharpened piece of glass, or a sharpened reed. The main requirement for the mishna is a sharp, straight cutting surface. Any serrations render the cutting tool invalid because of concern it will rip instead of cut the simanim.
In clarifying this Mishna, the Gemara gets on the subject of whether you may shecht with a cutting tool that's still attached to the ground. For example, I guess, if there's a reed that is sharp enough to shecht that's still growing, can you lead a cow to it and shecht it on the spot without uprooting it? There is a disagreement about this between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who forbids an attached cutting tool and Rabbi Hiyya, who permits it. Note: this is the Rabbi Hiyya who was a classmate of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and uncle of Rav, not the Rabbi Hiyya who was an Amora several generations later. Keep it straight! We later learn that Rabbi Yehuda haNasi is okay with a cutting tool that was originally detached from the ground and then later attached, for example a knife attached to a wheel to shecht with, he just does not permit the reed example or a sharpened rock that's still in the ground.
The Gemara traces the dispute to a disagreement over the interpretation of Genesis 22:10 in the story of Akedat Yitzchak. "And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son." Artscroll is uncertain about exactly what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi takes from this verse. Its first answer is that since Avraham used a knife, he learns that a detached knife is needed for shechitah. But in a footnote it offers a competing answer, which is that two verses later we see "Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son." and since "Vayelech Avraham", clearly the knife was detached if he could walk with it. In contrast, Rabbi Hiyya says that the meaning of the verse's language is not to teach us that you need a detached blade, but simply to teach that Avraham was so zealous in offering his son to God that he came with his own knife ready to go, even though he didn't need to.
This sort of halachic derivation from the early narrative parts of the Torah is fairly common in the Talmud, and it's a little tricky to understand how it works. For example a lot of the laws about what's involved in a wedding come from the Torah's description of Yaakov's marriage to Leah. But of course the Patriarchs and Matriarchs lived before Sinai and the giving of the Torah, and the Talmud apparently takes a very unsystematic approach to the question of whether they lived by Torah law. Whenever possible, they argue that the Avot and Imahot lived by the Torah including the Oral Torah, and as we see here, learns the proper ways to perform Torah mitzvot by looking to their behavior. But whenever it's completely impossible to make that argument, the Rabbis say "Oh, that was before Matan Torah, they were not obligated in the Torah yet."
Rabbi Zvi Lampel's approach to this question in The Dynamics of Dispute: The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times was helpful for me. He argues that when the Rabbis cite Torah verses in the Talmud, they're not really claiming that they derived the proof from the verse. Rather, the Rabbis know the halacha because it was transmitted as part of the Oral law, and they are merely demonstrating the Torah verses to show support for their position.
At the end of the Daf, in the context of the Mishna's statement that we may shecht at any time, is an interesting discussion of Devarim 12:20, which says that when the Jews enter the land of Israel, they'll be allowed to eat meat whenever they desire. Rabbi Yishmael teaches from this that while B'nei Yisrael were in the Midbar, they could eat meat if they offered it as part of one of the types of sacrificial offerings that were eaten, such as an Olah. Only after they entered Eretz Yisrael could they eat chullin.
Then Rabbah asks if perhaps now that we're in Galus, the rules from the Midbar might go back into effect, i.e. we can only eat meat if it's offered as a karban. But thankfully, no, we learn from this Mishna that this was only a rule for the Midbar, which was an experience of kedusha we are not going to experience again until Moshiach.
The Gemara will explore alternate explanations continuing on the next daf.
At the end of Daf 15 we moved on to a new mishna about the types of blades that can be used for shechita. It's actually surprisingly broad, at least b'dieved. You can shecht with a sharp metal blade, but you can also shecht with a sharpened rock, or a sharpened piece of glass, or a sharpened reed. The main requirement for the mishna is a sharp, straight cutting surface. Any serrations render the cutting tool invalid because of concern it will rip instead of cut the simanim.
In clarifying this Mishna, the Gemara gets on the subject of whether you may shecht with a cutting tool that's still attached to the ground. For example, I guess, if there's a reed that is sharp enough to shecht that's still growing, can you lead a cow to it and shecht it on the spot without uprooting it? There is a disagreement about this between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who forbids an attached cutting tool and Rabbi Hiyya, who permits it. Note: this is the Rabbi Hiyya who was a classmate of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and uncle of Rav, not the Rabbi Hiyya who was an Amora several generations later. Keep it straight! We later learn that Rabbi Yehuda haNasi is okay with a cutting tool that was originally detached from the ground and then later attached, for example a knife attached to a wheel to shecht with, he just does not permit the reed example or a sharpened rock that's still in the ground.
The Gemara traces the dispute to a disagreement over the interpretation of Genesis 22:10 in the story of Akedat Yitzchak. "And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son." Artscroll is uncertain about exactly what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi takes from this verse. Its first answer is that since Avraham used a knife, he learns that a detached knife is needed for shechitah. But in a footnote it offers a competing answer, which is that two verses later we see "Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son." and since "Vayelech Avraham", clearly the knife was detached if he could walk with it. In contrast, Rabbi Hiyya says that the meaning of the verse's language is not to teach us that you need a detached blade, but simply to teach that Avraham was so zealous in offering his son to God that he came with his own knife ready to go, even though he didn't need to.
This sort of halachic derivation from the early narrative parts of the Torah is fairly common in the Talmud, and it's a little tricky to understand how it works. For example a lot of the laws about what's involved in a wedding come from the Torah's description of Yaakov's marriage to Leah. But of course the Patriarchs and Matriarchs lived before Sinai and the giving of the Torah, and the Talmud apparently takes a very unsystematic approach to the question of whether they lived by Torah law. Whenever possible, they argue that the Avot and Imahot lived by the Torah including the Oral Torah, and as we see here, learns the proper ways to perform Torah mitzvot by looking to their behavior. But whenever it's completely impossible to make that argument, the Rabbis say "Oh, that was before Matan Torah, they were not obligated in the Torah yet."
Rabbi Zvi Lampel's approach to this question in The Dynamics of Dispute: The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times was helpful for me. He argues that when the Rabbis cite Torah verses in the Talmud, they're not really claiming that they derived the proof from the verse. Rather, the Rabbis know the halacha because it was transmitted as part of the Oral law, and they are merely demonstrating the Torah verses to show support for their position.
At the end of the Daf, in the context of the Mishna's statement that we may shecht at any time, is an interesting discussion of Devarim 12:20, which says that when the Jews enter the land of Israel, they'll be allowed to eat meat whenever they desire. Rabbi Yishmael teaches from this that while B'nei Yisrael were in the Midbar, they could eat meat if they offered it as part of one of the types of sacrificial offerings that were eaten, such as an Olah. Only after they entered Eretz Yisrael could they eat chullin.
Then Rabbah asks if perhaps now that we're in Galus, the rules from the Midbar might go back into effect, i.e. we can only eat meat if it's offered as a karban. But thankfully, no, we learn from this Mishna that this was only a rule for the Midbar, which was an experience of kedusha we are not going to experience again until Moshiach.
The Gemara will explore alternate explanations continuing on the next daf.