תלוש ולבסוף חברו לענין שחיטה מאי
In the case of a blade that was detached and ultimately one attached it, with regard to slaughter, what is the halakha?
תא שמע היה צור יוצא מן הכותל או שהיה קנה עולה מאליו ושחט בו שחיטתו פסולה
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: If there was a flint emerging from a wall or a reed arising from the ground on its own and he slaughtered with it, his slaughter is not valid. Since the wall itself was made from stones that were detached and subsequently reattached, the slaughter is not valid.
הכא במאי עסקינן בכותל מערה דיקא נמי דקתני דומיא דקנה עולה מאליו ש"מ
The Gemara rejects that proof: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with the case of the wall of a cave that was always attached. The language of the baraita is also precise in support of that explanation, as the tanna teaches the case of the flint emerging from a wall juxtaposed to, and therefore similar to, the case of a reed arising from the ground on its own, which was also always attached. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from it that this is the case.
ת"ש נעץ סכין בכותל ושחט בה שחיטתו כשרה שאני סכין דלא מבטל ליה
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: If one embedded a knife in a wall and slaughtered with it, his slaughter is valid. The knife was detached and then reattached, and the slaughter is valid. The Gemara rejects the proof: The reason that the slaughter is valid is that a knife is different, as he does not subsume it to the wall.
ת"ש במחובר לקרקע שחיטתו כשרה דלמא פרושי קא מפרש לה מאי מחובר לקרקע סכין דלא מבטל ליה
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from an earlier point in that baraita: If one slaughtered with an item that is attached to the ground, his slaughter is valid. This is a case where it was detached and then attached, as later in the baraita a case is cited when the blade was always attached and the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara rejects the proof: Perhaps the phrase that follows in the baraita: If one embedded a knife in a wall, is explaining the previous case. And accordingly, what is the meaning of attached to the ground? It is in the case of a knife, as he does not subsume it to the wall. But if he embedded a flint in a wall and slaughtered with it, his slaughter would be valid. Therefore, there is no proof from this baraita.
אמר מר נעץ סכין בכותל ושחט בה שחיטתו כשרה אמר רב ענן אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא שהסכין למעלה וצואר בהמה למטה אבל סכין למטה וצואר בהמה למעלה חיישינן שמא ידרוס
§ The Master said in the baraita: If one embedded a knife in a wall and slaughtered with it, his slaughter is valid. Rav Anan says that Shmuel says: The tanna taught this halakha only in a case where the knife is above and the animal’s neck is below, and he raises the animal’s head and draws it back and forth on the blade. But in a case where the knife is below and the animal’s neck is above, the slaughter is not valid because we are concerned lest he press the knife, due to the weight of the animal, thereby cutting the simanim without drawing the knife back and forth, which invalidates the slaughter.
והא קתני בין שהסכין למטה וצואר בהמה למעלה בין שהסכין למעלה וצואר בהמה למטה
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught explicitly in the baraita: With any item that cuts, one may slaughter, whether with a blade that is attached to the ground or with a blade that is detached from the ground; 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?
אמר רב זביד לצדדין קתני סכין למטה וצואר בהמה למעלה בתלוש סכין למעלה וצואר בהמה למטה במחובר רב פפא אמר בעופא דקליל
Rav Zevid said: The baraita is taught disjunctively: In the case where the knife is below and the neck of the animal is above, the slaughter is valid when the blade is detached. In the case where the knife is above and the neck of the animal is below, the slaughter is valid even when the blade is attached. Rav Pappa said: The baraita that teaches that one may slaughter even when the attached knife is below is referring to slaughter of a bird, which is light, and there is no concern that the weight of the bird will cause the slaughterer to press the bird’s neck onto the knife.
אמר רב חסדא א"ר יצחק ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא ה' דברים נאמרו בקרומית של קנה אין שוחטין בה ואין מלין בה ואין מחתכין בה בשר ואין מחצצין בה שינים ואין מקנחים בה
§ Rav Ḥisda says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says, and some say it was taught in a baraita: Five matters were said with regard to the stalk of a reed, which is used for cutting due to its sharpness. One may neither slaughter with it, due to the concern that splinters will be separated and become embedded in the simanim, invalidating the slaughter; nor circumcise with it for the same reason, due to the potential danger; nor cut meat with it, lest splinters become embedded in the meat and endanger one who eats it; nor pick one’s teeth with it, lest he wound himself; nor wipe with it after relieving oneself.
אין שוחטין בה והתניא בכל שוחטין בין בצור בין בזכוכית בין בקרומית של קנה אמר רב פפא בסימונא דאגמא
The baraita teaches: One may neither slaughter with it. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in another baraita: With any sharp object one may slaughter an animal, whether with a flint, or with glass shards, or with the stalk of a reed? Rav Pappa said: There, the reference is to a specific type of reed that grows in a marsh, which becomes a smooth, hard surface when it dries.
ואין מחתכין בה בשר רב פפא מחתך בה קרבי דגים דזיגי רבה בר רב הונא מחתך בה עופא דרכיך
The baraita teaches: Nor cut meat with it. Rav Pappa cuts with the stalk of a reed the innards of fish, which are transparent, such that any splinters would be obvious. Rabba bar Rav Huna cuts with it the meat of a bird, which is soft and will not cause the stalk of the reed to splinter.
ואין מקנחין בה תיפוק ליה משום דאמר מר המקנח בדבר שהאור שולטת בו שיניו נושרות אמר רב פפא קינוח פי מכה קאמרינן:
The baraita teaches: Nor wipe with it after relieving oneself. The Gemara objects: Derive that one may not wipe with it because the Master said: One who wipes with an object that is flammable, his lower teeth, i.e., the rectum that holds the intestines in place, fall out. Rav Pappa said in explanation: The reference in the baraita is not to wiping after relieving oneself. Rather, we are speaking with regard to wiping the blood or dirt from the opening of a wound.
הכל שוחטין ולעולם שוחטין: הכל שוחטין הכל בשחיטה ואפילו עוף
§ The mishna teaches: All slaughter [hakkol shoḥatin] and one may always slaughter. The Gemara interprets the phrase: All slaughter [hakkol shoḥatin], to mean all animals are included in the mitzva of slaughter, and even a bird.
לעולם שוחטין מאן תנא אמר רבה רבי ישמעאל היא דתניא (דברים יב, כ) כי ירחיב ה' אלהיך את גבולך כאשר דבר לך ואמרת אוכלה בשר וגו' ר' ישמעאל אומר לא בא הכתוב אלא להתיר להם בשר תאוה
With regard to the statement: One may always slaughter, who is the tanna who taught this halakha? Rabba said: It is Rabbi Yishmael, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “When the Lord your God shall expand your border, as He has promised you, and you shall say: I will eat flesh…you may eat flesh with all the desire of your soul” (Deuteronomy 12:20), Rabbi Yishmael says: The verse comes only to permit consumption of the non-sacrificial meat of desire to the Jewish people.
שבתחלה נאסר להם בשר תאוה משנכנסו לארץ הותר להם בשר תאוה
As, at the outset, the meat of desire was forbidden to them, and anyone who wanted to eat meat would sacrifice the animal as an offering. After the priest sprinkled the blood, it was permitted for one to eat the meat. When they entered into Eretz Yisrael, the meat of desire was permitted for them, and they could slaughter and eat meat wherever they chose.
ועכשיו שגלו יכול יחזרו לאיסורן הראשון לכך שנינו לעולם שוחטין
Rabba added: And now that the Jewish people were exiled, might one have thought that they return to their initial prohibition? Therefore, we learned in the mishna: One may always slaughter non-sacrificial meat.
מתקיף לה רב יוסף האי לעולם שוחטין לעולם שוחטין ואוכלין מבעי ליה ועוד מעיקרא מאי טעמא איתסר משום דהוו מקרבי למשכן ולבסוף מאי טעמא אישתרו דהוו מרחקי ממשכן
Rav Yosef objects to this. If so, this phrase: One may always slaughter, is inappropriate; the tanna should have taught: One may always slaughter and eat, as the matter of permission primarily relates to eating the meat, not to slaughtering the animal. And furthermore, initially, what is the reason that the meat of desire was forbidden? It was because in the wilderness, they were proximate to the Tabernacle and could partake of sacrificial meat from the table of God. And ultimately, what is the reason that the meat of desire was permitted? The reason was that in Eretz Yisrael they were distant from the Tabernacle.