Rava checked an arrow for R. Yonah bar Tachlifa. R. Yonah shot it at a bird, and thereby slaughtered it.

Question: Perhaps it cut through Chaladah!

Answer: He could see that the feathers were cut. This shows that it was not Chaladah.

Question: One who slaughters a bird must cover the blood!

Suggestion: Perhaps he covered it afterwards.

Rejection: One must put earth underneath before slaughtering!

(R. Zeira): It does not say 'he will cover it Afar (earth)', rather, "b'Afar (in earth)" to teach that one must put earth below and above the blood!

Answer: R. Yonah designated all the earth of the valley to be the lower cover for the blood.

(Mishnah): If he slaughtered and chopped off the head...

(R. Zeira): The knife must extend the length of the neck and further.

Question: Must it extend a second neck's length past the neck, or is any amount past the neck enough?

Answer (Mishnah): If he slaughtered and chopped off two heads, if the knife extends one neck's length, it is Kosher.

Question: What does 'one neck's length' mean in the Mishnah?

Suggestion: It means exactly one neck's length.

` Rejection: It cannot be that one neck's length suffices for two animals, but we need more than one neck's length for one animal!

Answer: Rather, it means one neck's length beyond the two necks of the animals.

Also R. Zeira meant that it must extend a neck's length beyond the neck.

(Mishnah): This applies when he cut in only one direction...

(Rav Menasheh): The Mishnah discusses a razor without protrusions at the ends.

Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Avya): May a needle be used to slaughter?

Answer (Rav Menasheh): No, for it tears.

Question (Rav Acha): May a cutter's needle be used?

Answer (Rav Menasheh): The Mishnah says 'of any size' to include this.

Suggestion: This comes to include a cutter's needle.

Rejection: No, it includes a razor.

Question: The Mishnah explicitly permits a razor!

Answer: The Mishnah clarifies what it said. We permit a knife of any size, i.e. a razor.

Support: Presumably, this is correct. If the Mishnah permitted a cutter's needle, it would not need to permit a razor!

Rejection: No, it must teach a razor. One might have thought that we decree to disqualify a razor, due to razors with protrusions. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): If a knife fell and slaughtered, even if it slaughtered properly, it is invalid.

"You will slaughter and you will eat" - what you slaughter you may eat.

(Gemara): This is only when it falls by itself. Had one made it fall, it would be a valid Shechitah, even though he had no intention!

Question: Who is our Tana, who does not require intent to slaughter?

Answer (Rava): It is R. Noson.

(Ushaya Ze'ira - Beraisa - R. Noson): If one threw a knife to stick it in a wall, and it slaughtered on the way, the Shechitah is valid;

Chachamim say, it is invalid.

(Ushaya Ze'ira): The Halachah follows R. Noson.

Question: Rava established another Stam Mishnah like R. Noson. Why did he need to do so twice?

(Mishnah): If a Cheresh (deaf-mute), lunatic or minor slaughtered with others looking on, it is valid.

Question: Who is this Tana, who does not require intent to slaughter?

Answer (Rava): It is R. Noson.

Answer: We could not learn from one to the other;

From the Beraisa, we know only that R. Noson is Machshir when the person intended to make an incision of some kind. We would not know that he is Machshir when he threw the knife down without intent to cut;

From our Mishnah, we know only that R. Noson permits what a person with Da'as (understanding) slaughtered. We would not know that he permits what a Cheresh, lunatic or minor slaughtered.

(Rav Yehudah citing Rav): If a Nidah was immersed unwillingly, she is permitted to her husband, but forbidden to eat Terumah;

(R. Yochanan): She is forbidden even to her husband.

Question (Rava): Rav permits her to her husband, even though relations with a Nidah is Chayavei Kerisus. All the more so he should permit her to eat Terumah, for which there is only Misah b'Yedei Shamayim (for eating it b'Tum'ah)!

Answer (Rav Nachman): Her husband is Chulin. Immersion for Chulin does not require intent.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer #1 (Mishnah): If a wave containing 40 Sa'im of water separated from the sea and fell on a person and on Kelim, they are Tehorim.

Suggestion: Just like the Kelim had no intent to become Tehorim, also the person!

Rejection: No. The case is, he was waiting for such a wave to fall on him;

The Kelim are like the man. Just like he must intend to become Tahor, he must also intend for them to become Tehorim.

Question: If he was waiting for such a wave to fall on him, surely he becomes Tahor. Why must the Mishnah teach this?

Answer: One might have thought that we decree lest he immerse in a channel of rainwater (without 40 Sa'im in one place/ The channel is not considered to be connected.) Alternatively, perhaps we should decree to disqualify Tevilah in the end of the wave that touches the ground, lest one come to immerse Kelim in the middle of the wave in mid-air. The Mishnah teaches that there is no such decree.

Question: What is the source that we may not immerse in a wave in mid-air?

Answer (Mishnah): We may immerse in waves that reached that ground, but not in waves in mid-air, for we do not immerse in air.

Reiteration of Question (e): What is the source that immersion for Chulin does not require intent?

Answer #2 (Mishnah): If Peros fell into an irrigation channel, and Reuven's hands were Tamei and he stuck his hands in and removed the Peros, his hands become Tehorim and the Peros are not Huchshar. (Peros can receive Tum'ah only if they became wet, and liquid willingly came on them.)

If he wanted to wash his hands, his hands become Tehorim and the Peros are Huchshar.

Question (Rava - Beraisa): If a man immersed with intention to eat Chulin in Taharah, he becomes Tahor for Chulin, but he may not eat Ma'aser.

This shows that intention is required even for Chulin!

Answer (Rav Nachman): (Intent is not needed for Chulin.) The Beraisa teaches that even though he (had intent and) became Tahor for Chulin, he may not eat Ma'aser.

Question (Rava - Beraisa): If a man immersed without intention, it is as if he did not immerse.

Suggestion: It is as if he did not immerse at all.

Answer (Rav Nachman): No. It is as if he did not immerse for Ma'aser, but he became Tahor for Chulin.

Rava doubted the validity of these answers until he found a Beraisa supporting Rav Nachman.

(Beraisa): If a man immersed without intent, he is Tahor for Chulin, but he may not eat Ma'aser.

Question (Abaye): This Beraisa refutes R. Yochanan!

Answer (Rav Yosef): R. Yochanan holds like another Tana, i.e. R. Yonason ben Yosef:

(Beraisa - R. Yonason ben Yosef) Question: Why does it say "the garment will be washed (immersed) a second time"? We already knew that this is the second time!

Answer: This equates the second washing to the first. Just like the first washing requires intent ("v'Tzivah ha'Kohen v'Chivso"), also the second.

Suggestion: Just like the first washing requires the Kohen's intent, also the second!

Rejection: "It will become Tahor", even without the Kohen's intent. (Another's intent suffices.)

Question (Rav Simi bar Ashi): R. Yochanan said that the Halachah always follows a Stam Mishnah!

(Mishnah): If a knife fell and slaughtered, even properly, the Shechitah is invalid.

Inference: It is invalid because it fell. Had he cast it down it would be Kosher, even though he had no intent!

Question: Who is the Tana of our Mishnah, who says that no intent is needed for Shechitah?

Answer (Rava): It is R. Noson.

Answer: Even R. Yonason ben Yosef agrees that Shechitah (of Chulin) needs no intent. We infer this from the Halachah that Shechitah of Kodshim needs intent.

Chachamim (who argue with R. Noson) infer that (for Chulin) intent to slaughter is not required, but intent to cut is required.

(Rava): R. Noson's reasoning is better than Chachamim's;

It says "you will slaughter", but not 'you will cut'. If we need intent, we should need intent to slaughter!

Question: What is the case of a Nidah immersing against her will?

Suggestion: Rachel forcibly put Leah in a Mikveh.

Rejection: If so, Rachel's intention would suffice. Leah may even eat Terumah!

(Mishnah): A healthy woman can permit a deaf, insane, or blind woman to eat Terumah. (She checks her for Dam Nidah, and immerses her at the proper time.)

Answer (Rav Papa): Rather, according to R. Noson, she fell from a bridge. According to Chachamim, she entered the water to cool off and fell in all the way.