Chullin 16a

חולין ט״ז ע״א

Learn Chullin 16a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Chullin 16a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Attached versus detached blades in שחיטה, direct versus indirect force, and the status of something detached and later attached

Overview

The גמרא finishes resolving a ברייתא whose two clauses seem to clash, and proves that a blade attached from the start differs from one that was detached and later reattached. It then explains why one source calls שחיטה with a machine (מוכני) valid while another calls it invalid. The first answer contrasts a potter's wheel with a waterwheel. The second answer contrasts direct force (כח ראשון) with indirect force (כח שני), backed by רב פפא's ruling that someone who drowns another person with released water is liable only through direct force, since anything else is only גרמא. Next, רבי offers a פסוק from the עקידה as a source that שחיטה needs a detached knife. רבי חייא dismisses it, because the פסוק only shows אברהם's eagerness. רבא then says that for עבודה זרה, something detached and later attached clearly counts as detached, while for הכשר זרעים it is a dispute between תנאים. He proves this from a משנה about a bowl turned over on a wall. רבי אלעזר says two תנאים wrote that משנה, while רב פפא reads it as one תנא who distinguishes a cave wall from a built wall. The amud ends as רבא begins a new question, which continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (26)

1. ChallengeThe two clauses of the teaching contradict each other
2. ConclusionAttached from the start versus cut off and reattached
3. StatementQuoting the ruling that slaughtering with a machine is valid
4. ChallengeAnother teaching says machine slaughter is invalid
5. ResolutionPotter's wheel versus waterwheel
6. ResolutionBoth cases are waterwheels: first turn versus second turn
7. Proofרב פפא: drowning someone with a stream of water
8. QuestionWhy is he liable?
9. ResponseThe water is like his own arrows
10. ConclusionLiable only for direct force; indirect force is only גרמא
11. Statementרבי derives that slaughter needs a detached blade
12. Questionרב asks what רבי meant
13. Rejectionרבי חייא calls the proof meaningless
14. ChallengeBut רבי quoted a verse
15. ResolutionThe verse shows אברהם's eagerness
16. Statementרבא: for idolatry, detached-then-attached counts as detached
17. ProofProof: bowing to a house forbids it
18. StatementFor making produce susceptible, it is a dispute between תנאים
19. ProofThe משנה of the bowl on the wall
20. ChallengeThe משנה seems to contradict itself
21. ChallengeThe second clause implies the opposite
22. ResolutionTwo different תנאים wrote the two clauses
23. ResolutionOne תנא: a cave wall versus a built wall
24. ResolutionRereading the first clause as a cave wall
25. ResolutionA built wall: rinsing it counts
26. Questionרבא introduces a new question