Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 7, 2018 | 讻状讟 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 10

If one finds that after the shechita the knife had nicks, was the shichta good – do we assume the nicks happened after the shechita or in the course of the shechita before the cutting of the simanim? Both options are discussed. One witness is sufficient for laws of forbidden items like shechita. What is the basis for this law and how is it relevant to shechita? From where do we derive that an item retains its forbidden status unless proven otherwise (chazaka)?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪驻谞讬 砖讚专讻谉 砖诇 砖专爪讬诐 诇讙诇讜转 讜讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 诇讻住讜转

It is due to the fact that it is the typical manner of creeping animals to expose the contents of a vessel so that they may drink. Therefore, the exposure of the water is attributed to a creeping animal or to a ritually pure person. By contrast, in a case where he left the vessel exposed and found it covered, the concern is that it was an impure man who covered it, since it is not the typical manner of creeping animals to cover exposed vessels. Evidently, with regard to prohibition or ritual impurity, there are circumstances of uncertainty when the ruling is lenient.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛谞讬讞讛 诪讙讜诇讛 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 诪讻讜住讛 诪讻讜住讛 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 诪讙讜诇讛 讛讗 诪爪讗讛 讻诪讛 砖讛谞讬讞讛 诇讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬讻讗 讜诇讗 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬讻讗

Alternatively, it can be inferred from the baraita that the reason the contents of the vessel are impure or disqualified, respectively, is that he left it exposed and came back and found it covered or that he left it covered and came back and found it exposed. But if he found the vessel just as he left it, there is neither impurity nor disqualification.

讜讗讬诇讜 住驻拽 诪讬诐 诪讙讜诇讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞诪讬专讗 住讻谞转讗 诪讗讬住讜专讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

But in a situation of uncertainty where he left exposed water and then came and found the vessel exposed, the water is forbidden under all circumstances. Learn from it that danger is more severe than prohibition. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from it.

转谞谉 讛转诐 砖诇砖讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙诇讜讬 诪讬诐 讜讬讬谉 讜讞诇讘 讻诪讛 讬砖讛讜 讜讬讛讬讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讻讚讬 砖讬爪讗 讛专讞砖 诪诪拽讜诐 拽专讜讘 讜讬砖转讛 讜讻诪讛 诪拽讜诐 拽专讜讘 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讚讬 砖讬爪讗 诪转讞转 讗讜讝谉 讻诇讬 讜讬砖转讛

We learned in a mishna there (Terumot 8:4): Three liquids are forbidden due to exposure: Water, wine, and milk. How long shall they remain exposed and their contents will be forbidden? It is a period equivalent to the time necessary so that a snake could emerge from a proximate place and drink. And how far away is considered a proximate place? Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rav Yehuda, said: Even a period equivalent to the time necessary so that a snake could emerge from beneath the handle of the vessel and drink.

讬砖转讛 讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讬砖转讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 诇讞讜专讜

The Gemara asks: If it is only the time necessary for the snake to emerge and drink, doesn鈥檛 one see the snake drink, in which case there is no uncertainty? Rather, it is a period equivalent to the time necessary for a snake to emerge from a proximate place, drink, and return to its hole. If one left exposed liquid unattended for that interval, it is possible that the snake drank the liquid unseen by the owner of the liquid.

讗讬转诪专 讛砖讜讞讟 讘住讻讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗转 驻讙讜诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讬讘专 讘讛 注爪诪讜转 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 驻住讜诇讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讘注讜专 谞驻讙诪讛 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 砖诪讗 讘注爪诐 谞驻讙诪讛

It was stated: With regard to one who slaughters an animal with a knife that was afterward found to be notched, Rav Huna says: Even if, after the slaughter and before the knife was examined, he broke bones with the knife all day, the slaughter is not valid, as we are concerned that perhaps the knife became notched on the hide of the neck. And Rav 岣sda says: The slaughter is valid, as perhaps it was on the bone that he broke with the knife after the slaughter that it became notched.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻砖诪注转讬讛 讗诇讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 诇讱 注爪诐 讜讚讗讬 驻讜讙诐 注讜专 住驻拽 驻讜讙诐 住驻拽 诇讗 驻讜讙诐 讛讜讬 住驻拽 讜讜讚讗讬 讜讗讬谉 住驻拽 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, Rav Huna stated his opinion in accordance with his halakha cited earlier (9a): An animal during its lifetime exists with the presumptive status of prohibition until it becomes known in what manner it was slaughtered. But as for Rav 岣sda, what is the reason for his ruling that the slaughter is valid? The Gemara answers that Rav 岣sda could have said to you: A bone certainly notches the knife, but with regard to hide, it is uncertain whether it notches the knife and uncertain whether it does not notch it. This is a case of certainty and uncertainty, and the principle is that an uncertainty does not override a certainty.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 诇住讬讜注讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讟讘诇 讜注诇讛 讜谞诪爪讗 注诇讬讜 讚讘专 讞讜爪抓 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转注住拽 讘讗讜转讜 讛诪讬谉 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 讟讘讬诇讛 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讘专讬 诇讬 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 注诇讬 拽讜讚诐 诇讻谉 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讜讚讗讬 讟讘诇 住驻拽 讛讜讛 注诇讬讛 住驻拽 诇讗 讛讜讛 注诇讬讛 讜拽讗转讬 住驻拽 讜诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

Rava raises an objection to the opinion of Rav 岣sda to support the opinion of Rav Huna, from a baraita: If one immersed and emerged from the ritual bath and an interposing item was later found on him, then even if he had been engaged in handling that same type of item for the entire day after his immersion, the immersion does not fulfill his obligation. This is so until he will say: It is clear to me that this interposition was not on me beforehand. And here it is a case where he certainly immersed, and it is uncertain whether the interposition was on him at that time and uncertain whether it was not on him, and nevertheless, contrary to the opinion of Rav 岣sda, the uncertainty overrides the certainty.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛注诪讚 讟诪讗 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讟讘诇

The Gemara rejects that proof: It is different there, as it can be said: Establish the status of the impure person on the basis of his presumptive status of impurity, and say that he did not immerse properly.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛注诪讚 讘讛诪讛 注诇 讞讝拽转讛 讜讗讬诪专 诇讗 谞砖讞讟讛 讛专讬 砖讞讜讟讛 诇驻谞讬讱

The Gemara challenges: Here too, establish the status of the animal on the basis of its presumptive status of prohibition and say that it was not slaughtered properly. Why does Rav 岣sda rule that it is permitted? The Gemara explains: That status has been undermined, as the slaughtered animal is before you. There is no indication that the slaughter was not valid, and most slaughtered animals are slaughtered properly.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛专讬 讟讘诇 诇驻谞讬讱 讛讗 讗讬转讬诇讬讚讗 讘讬讛 专讬注讜转讗

The Gemara challenges: Here too, in the case of immersion, the status of impurity is undermined, as the person who has immersed is before you. The Gemara explains: The case of immersion is different, as a flaw developed in the presumptive validity of the immersion, since there is an interposition.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬转讬诇讬讚讗 讘讛 专讬注讜转讗 住讻讬谉 讗讬转专注讗讬 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讗讬转专注讗讬

The Gemara challenges: Here too, a flaw developed in the presumptive validity of slaughter, as the knife is notched. The Gemara explains: In the case of slaughter, the knife became flawed, but the animal did not become flawed. Therefore, the animal assumes the presumptive status of permissibility. By contrast, in the case of immersion, the interposition was found on the person, thereby nullifying his presumptive status of purity.

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖讞讟 讗转 讛讜砖讟 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖诪讟讛 讛讙专讙专转 讻砖专讛 谞砖诪讟讛 讛讙专讙专转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟 讗转 讛讜砖讟 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav 岣sda from a baraita: The slaughter of a bird is valid with the cutting of one siman, the windpipe or the gullet. Therefore, if one cut the gullet, and the windpipe was displaced thereafter, the slaughter is valid. If the windpipe was displaced and one cut the gullet thereafter, the slaughter is not valid.

砖讞讟 讗转 讛讜砖讟 讜谞诪爪讗 讛讙专讙专转 砖诪讜讟讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗诐 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 谞砖诪讟讛 讗诐 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 谞砖诪讟讛 讝讛 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜讗诪专讜 讻诇 住驻拽 讘砖讞讬讟讛 驻住讜诇

If one cut the gullet, and the windpipe was found displaced, and he does not know whether the windpipe was displaced before the slaughter or whether it was displaced after the slaughter; that was the incident that came before the Sages, and they said: In any case of uncertainty with regard to slaughter, the slaughter is not valid.

讻诇 住驻拽 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诇讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 住驻拽 砖讛讛 住驻拽 讚专住

The Gemara asks: With regard to the expansive formulation: With regard to any case of uncertainty with regard to slaughter, what does it serve to add? Does it not serve to add a case like this one where there is uncertainty whether the knife was notched before or after the slaughter? The Gemara answers: No, it serves to add a case of uncertainty whether he interrupted the slaughter in the middle, or uncertainty whether he pressed the knife on the simanim. If he did either, it invalidates the slaughter.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讗讬转讬诇讬讚讗 讘讛 专讬注讜转讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讛讻讗 住讻讬谉 讗讬转专注讗讬 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讗讬转专注讗讬

The Gemara asks: And in what way is uncertainty whether he interrupted the slaughter or pressed the knife different from uncertainty whether the knife became notched before or after the slaughter? The Gemara answers: There, in the case of uncertainty with regard to interruption or pressing, the flaw developed in the animal, and the slaughter is not valid. Here, in the case of uncertainty whether the knife became notched before or after the slaughter, a flaw developed in the knife but a flaw did not develop in the animal, and the slaughter is valid.

讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻砖诇讗 砖讬讘专 讘讛 注爪诐 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讻砖砖讬讘专 讘讛 注爪诐 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 砖讬讘专 讘讛 注爪诐 讗诇讗 讘诪讗讬 讗讬驻讙讬诐 讗讬诪讗 讘注爪诐 讚诪驻专拽转 讗讬驻讙讬诐

And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna that the slaughter is not valid in a case where he did not break a bone with the knife. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda that the slaughter is valid in a case where he broke a bone with the knife. Learn by inference that Rav 岣sda rules that the slaughter is valid even if he did not break a bone with the knife. The Gemara asks: But if he did not break bones, on what was the knife notched? It must have been on the hide. Why, then, is the slaughter valid? The Gemara answers: Say that it was notched on the neck bone after he competed slaughtering the animal.

讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜讟专祝 专讘 讬讜住祝 注讚 转诇讬住专 讞讬讜转讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽诪讬讬转讗 诇讗 讻专讘 讞住讚讗 讜诇讘专 诪拽诪讬讬转讗

The Gemara relates: There was an incident, and Rav Yosef deemed as many as thirteen animals tereifot when he discovered the knife was notched after slaughtering the final animal. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav Yosef issue his ruling? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, who holds that the concern is that the knife was notched by the animal鈥檚 hide, and he ruled that even the first animal is forbidden? The Gemara answers: No, perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, who holds that the notch is attributed to the neck bone, and they are all forbidden except for the first animal.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗讬 讻专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讻讚讬 诪转诇讗 转诇讬谞谉 诪诪讗讬 讚讘注爪诐 讚诪驻专拽转 讚拽诪讬讬转讗 讗讬驻讙讬诐 讚诇诪讗 讘注爪诐 讚诪驻专拽转 讚讘转专讬讬转讗 讗讬驻讙讬诐

And if you wish, say instead: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, since we attribute the notch to the neck bone as a leniency, from where is it ascertained that it is on the neck bone of the first animal that it was notched? Perhaps it is on the neck bone of the last animal that it was notched, and all of the animals are permitted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讜转讗 讘讬谉 讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇诪讬驻住诇 拽诪讬讬转讗 诇讗 讻专讘 讞住讚讗 讜诇讗讻砖讜专讬 讘转专讬讬转讗

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Rav Kahana requires an examination of the knife between each and every act of slaughter. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav Kahana issue his ruling? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, and he stated the halakha to invalidate the slaughter of the first animal that he slaughtered if he discovers a notch in the knife? The Gemara answers: No, perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, according to the first of the two explanations of the ruling of Rav Yosef, who holds that if a notch is found it is attributed to the neck bone, and examination of the knife is required to validate the slaughter of the next animal.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转讬讘注讬 谞诪讬 讘讚讬拽转 讞讻诐 注讚 讗讞讚 谞讗诪谉 讘讗讬住讜专讬谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪注讬拽专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛专讗讜转 住讻讬谉 诇讞讻诐 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚讜 砖诇 讞讻诐

The Gemara raises an objection: If so, and the reference is to the examination before slaughter, the knife should require the examination of a Torah scholar that was required by the Sages. The Gemara explains: There is no need for a Sage to examine the knife, based on the principle: The testimony of one witness, in this case the slaughterer, is deemed credible with regard to ritual matters. The Gemara challenges: If so, even from the outset, examination of the knife by a Torah scholar should also not be required. The Gemara explains: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that the Sages said to show the knife to a Torah scholar only due to the requirement to show deference to the Sage? Once deference was shown before the initial slaughter, it is no longer necessary to do so.

诪谞讗 讛讗 诪诇转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讜拽讬 诪讬诇转讗 讗讞讝拽讬讛

搂 Apropos the statement of Rav Huna that an animal during its lifetime exists with the presumptive status of prohibition, and therefore in cases of uncertainty whether the animal was properly slaughtered, one rules stringently and it is prohibited to eat its flesh, the Gemara asks: From where is this matter that the Sages said: Establish the status of the matter on the basis of its presumptive status, derived?

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪讗 讛讻讛谉 诪谉 讛讘讬转 讗诇 驻转讞 讛讘讬转 讜讛住讙讬专 讗转 讛讘讬转 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讚诇诪讗 讗讚谞驻讬拽 讜讗转讗 讘爪专 诇讬讛 砖讬注讜专讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜拽讬 讗讞讝拽讬讛

Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said that the verse states with regard to leprosy of houses that after a priest views a leprous mark: 鈥淎nd the priest shall emerge from the house to the entrance of the house, and quarantine the house seven days鈥 (Leviticus 14:38). The Gemara asks: How can the priest quarantine the house based on his viewing the leprous mark? Perhaps as he was emerging and coming out of the house, the size of the leprous mark diminished and it lacks the requisite measure for leprosy. Rather, is it not due to the fact that we say: Establish the status of the matter on the basis of its presumptive status?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讚专讱 讗讞讜专讬讜 讚拽讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 谞驻拽

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov objects to that proof: And perhaps the verse is referring to a case where the priest emerged backward, as in that case, the priest sees the leprous mark as he emerges.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 砖转讬 转砖讜讘讜转 讘讚讘专 讞讚讗 讚讬爪讬讗讛 讚专讱 讗讞讜专讬讜 诇讗 砖诪讛 讬爪讬讗讛 讜注讜讚 讗讞讜专讬 讛讚诇转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚驻转讞 讘讬讛 讻讜讜转讗 讜讛转谞谉 讘讬转 讗驻诇 讗讬谉 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘讜 讞诇讜谞讜转 诇专讗讜转 讗转 谞讙注讜

Abaye said to him that there are two refutations of that statement. One is that emerging backward is not called emerging, and the priest would not fulfill the verse 鈥淎nd the priest shall emerge from the house鈥 by doing so. And furthermore, in a case where the leprous mark is behind the door, what is there to say? Even walking backward would not enable the priest to see it. And if you would say that the priest can open a window in the wall to enable him to see the leprous mark, but didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Nega鈥檌m 2:3): In a dark house one may not open windows to enable him to see his leprous mark?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讚拽讗诪专转 讬爪讬讗讛 讚专讱 讗讞讜专讬讜 诇讗 砖诪讛 讬爪讬讗讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讬讜讻讬讞 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讬爪讬讗讛 讜转谞谉 讬爪讗 讜讘讗 诇讜 讚专讱 讻谞讬住转讜 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讘讬转 讗驻诇 讗讬谉 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘讜 讞诇讜谞讜转 诇专讗讜转 讗转 谞讙注讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转讞讝拽 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讞讝拽 讗讬转讞讝拽

Rava said to Abaye: With regard to that which you say: Emerging backward is not called emerging, the case of the High Priest on Yom Kippur will prove that this is not so, as emerging is written in his regard (see Leviticus 16:18), and we learned in a mishna (Yoma 52b): The High Priest emerged and came out backward in the manner of his entry, facing the Ark in the Holy of Holies. And with regard to that which you say: In a dark house, one may not open windows to enable him to see his leprous mark, this statement applies only in a case where the existence of a leprous mark in the house was not yet established; but in a case where the existence of a leprous mark in the house was already established, it was established, and the priest may open a window to view it.

转谞讬讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讜讬爪讗 讛讻讛谉 诪谉 讛讘讬转 讬讻讜诇 讬诇讱 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讬住讙讬专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇 驻转讞 讛讘讬转

It is taught in a baraita not in accordance with the opinion of Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov, who suggested that the verse is referring to a case where the priest emerged from the house backward and therefore there is no proof that one lets the matter remain in its presumptive status. It is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall emerge from the house to the entrance of the house and quarantine the house.鈥 One might have thought that he may go into his own house and quarantine the house from there; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭o the entrance of the house,鈥 referring to the house that is being quarantined.

讗讬 驻转讞 讛讘讬转 讬讻讜诇 讬注诪讜讚 转讞转 讛诪砖拽讜祝 讜讬住讙讬专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谉 讛讘讬转 注讚 砖讬爪讗 诪谉 讛讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 注讜诪讚 讘爪讚 讛诪砖拽讜祝 讜诪住讙讬专

If he must emerge to the entrance of the house, one might have thought that he may stand beneath the lintel and quarantine the house; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔rom the house,鈥 indicating that he does not quarantine the house until he emerges from the house in its entirety. How so? He stands alongside the lintel and quarantines the house.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 讛诇讱 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讛住讙讬专 讗讜 砖注诪讚 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜讛住讙讬专 砖讛住讙专讜 诪讜住讙专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛住讙讬专 讗转 讛讘讬转 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The baraita concludes: And from where is it derived that if he went inside his own house and quarantined the leprous house, or that if he stood inside the leprous house and quarantined it, that his quarantine is a valid quarantine? It is derived from that which the verse states: 鈥淎nd quarantine the house,鈥 meaning in any case. Apparently, the quarantine is valid even if he is unable to see the leprous mark, as the mark remains in its previous presumptive status.

讜专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘

And Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov interprets the baraita in accordance with his opinion

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 10

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 10

诪驻谞讬 砖讚专讻谉 砖诇 砖专爪讬诐 诇讙诇讜转 讜讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 诇讻住讜转

It is due to the fact that it is the typical manner of creeping animals to expose the contents of a vessel so that they may drink. Therefore, the exposure of the water is attributed to a creeping animal or to a ritually pure person. By contrast, in a case where he left the vessel exposed and found it covered, the concern is that it was an impure man who covered it, since it is not the typical manner of creeping animals to cover exposed vessels. Evidently, with regard to prohibition or ritual impurity, there are circumstances of uncertainty when the ruling is lenient.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛谞讬讞讛 诪讙讜诇讛 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 诪讻讜住讛 诪讻讜住讛 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 诪讙讜诇讛 讛讗 诪爪讗讛 讻诪讛 砖讛谞讬讞讛 诇讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬讻讗 讜诇讗 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬讻讗

Alternatively, it can be inferred from the baraita that the reason the contents of the vessel are impure or disqualified, respectively, is that he left it exposed and came back and found it covered or that he left it covered and came back and found it exposed. But if he found the vessel just as he left it, there is neither impurity nor disqualification.

讜讗讬诇讜 住驻拽 诪讬诐 诪讙讜诇讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞诪讬专讗 住讻谞转讗 诪讗讬住讜专讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

But in a situation of uncertainty where he left exposed water and then came and found the vessel exposed, the water is forbidden under all circumstances. Learn from it that danger is more severe than prohibition. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from it.

转谞谉 讛转诐 砖诇砖讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙诇讜讬 诪讬诐 讜讬讬谉 讜讞诇讘 讻诪讛 讬砖讛讜 讜讬讛讬讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讻讚讬 砖讬爪讗 讛专讞砖 诪诪拽讜诐 拽专讜讘 讜讬砖转讛 讜讻诪讛 诪拽讜诐 拽专讜讘 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讚讬 砖讬爪讗 诪转讞转 讗讜讝谉 讻诇讬 讜讬砖转讛

We learned in a mishna there (Terumot 8:4): Three liquids are forbidden due to exposure: Water, wine, and milk. How long shall they remain exposed and their contents will be forbidden? It is a period equivalent to the time necessary so that a snake could emerge from a proximate place and drink. And how far away is considered a proximate place? Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rav Yehuda, said: Even a period equivalent to the time necessary so that a snake could emerge from beneath the handle of the vessel and drink.

讬砖转讛 讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讬砖转讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 诇讞讜专讜

The Gemara asks: If it is only the time necessary for the snake to emerge and drink, doesn鈥檛 one see the snake drink, in which case there is no uncertainty? Rather, it is a period equivalent to the time necessary for a snake to emerge from a proximate place, drink, and return to its hole. If one left exposed liquid unattended for that interval, it is possible that the snake drank the liquid unseen by the owner of the liquid.

讗讬转诪专 讛砖讜讞讟 讘住讻讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗转 驻讙讜诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讬讘专 讘讛 注爪诪讜转 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 驻住讜诇讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讘注讜专 谞驻讙诪讛 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 砖诪讗 讘注爪诐 谞驻讙诪讛

It was stated: With regard to one who slaughters an animal with a knife that was afterward found to be notched, Rav Huna says: Even if, after the slaughter and before the knife was examined, he broke bones with the knife all day, the slaughter is not valid, as we are concerned that perhaps the knife became notched on the hide of the neck. And Rav 岣sda says: The slaughter is valid, as perhaps it was on the bone that he broke with the knife after the slaughter that it became notched.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻砖诪注转讬讛 讗诇讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 诇讱 注爪诐 讜讚讗讬 驻讜讙诐 注讜专 住驻拽 驻讜讙诐 住驻拽 诇讗 驻讜讙诐 讛讜讬 住驻拽 讜讜讚讗讬 讜讗讬谉 住驻拽 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, Rav Huna stated his opinion in accordance with his halakha cited earlier (9a): An animal during its lifetime exists with the presumptive status of prohibition until it becomes known in what manner it was slaughtered. But as for Rav 岣sda, what is the reason for his ruling that the slaughter is valid? The Gemara answers that Rav 岣sda could have said to you: A bone certainly notches the knife, but with regard to hide, it is uncertain whether it notches the knife and uncertain whether it does not notch it. This is a case of certainty and uncertainty, and the principle is that an uncertainty does not override a certainty.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 诇住讬讜注讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讟讘诇 讜注诇讛 讜谞诪爪讗 注诇讬讜 讚讘专 讞讜爪抓 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转注住拽 讘讗讜转讜 讛诪讬谉 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 讟讘讬诇讛 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讘专讬 诇讬 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 注诇讬 拽讜讚诐 诇讻谉 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讜讚讗讬 讟讘诇 住驻拽 讛讜讛 注诇讬讛 住驻拽 诇讗 讛讜讛 注诇讬讛 讜拽讗转讬 住驻拽 讜诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

Rava raises an objection to the opinion of Rav 岣sda to support the opinion of Rav Huna, from a baraita: If one immersed and emerged from the ritual bath and an interposing item was later found on him, then even if he had been engaged in handling that same type of item for the entire day after his immersion, the immersion does not fulfill his obligation. This is so until he will say: It is clear to me that this interposition was not on me beforehand. And here it is a case where he certainly immersed, and it is uncertain whether the interposition was on him at that time and uncertain whether it was not on him, and nevertheless, contrary to the opinion of Rav 岣sda, the uncertainty overrides the certainty.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛注诪讚 讟诪讗 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讟讘诇

The Gemara rejects that proof: It is different there, as it can be said: Establish the status of the impure person on the basis of his presumptive status of impurity, and say that he did not immerse properly.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛注诪讚 讘讛诪讛 注诇 讞讝拽转讛 讜讗讬诪专 诇讗 谞砖讞讟讛 讛专讬 砖讞讜讟讛 诇驻谞讬讱

The Gemara challenges: Here too, establish the status of the animal on the basis of its presumptive status of prohibition and say that it was not slaughtered properly. Why does Rav 岣sda rule that it is permitted? The Gemara explains: That status has been undermined, as the slaughtered animal is before you. There is no indication that the slaughter was not valid, and most slaughtered animals are slaughtered properly.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛专讬 讟讘诇 诇驻谞讬讱 讛讗 讗讬转讬诇讬讚讗 讘讬讛 专讬注讜转讗

The Gemara challenges: Here too, in the case of immersion, the status of impurity is undermined, as the person who has immersed is before you. The Gemara explains: The case of immersion is different, as a flaw developed in the presumptive validity of the immersion, since there is an interposition.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬转讬诇讬讚讗 讘讛 专讬注讜转讗 住讻讬谉 讗讬转专注讗讬 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讗讬转专注讗讬

The Gemara challenges: Here too, a flaw developed in the presumptive validity of slaughter, as the knife is notched. The Gemara explains: In the case of slaughter, the knife became flawed, but the animal did not become flawed. Therefore, the animal assumes the presumptive status of permissibility. By contrast, in the case of immersion, the interposition was found on the person, thereby nullifying his presumptive status of purity.

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖讞讟 讗转 讛讜砖讟 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖诪讟讛 讛讙专讙专转 讻砖专讛 谞砖诪讟讛 讛讙专讙专转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟 讗转 讛讜砖讟 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav 岣sda from a baraita: The slaughter of a bird is valid with the cutting of one siman, the windpipe or the gullet. Therefore, if one cut the gullet, and the windpipe was displaced thereafter, the slaughter is valid. If the windpipe was displaced and one cut the gullet thereafter, the slaughter is not valid.

砖讞讟 讗转 讛讜砖讟 讜谞诪爪讗 讛讙专讙专转 砖诪讜讟讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗诐 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 谞砖诪讟讛 讗诐 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 谞砖诪讟讛 讝讛 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜讗诪专讜 讻诇 住驻拽 讘砖讞讬讟讛 驻住讜诇

If one cut the gullet, and the windpipe was found displaced, and he does not know whether the windpipe was displaced before the slaughter or whether it was displaced after the slaughter; that was the incident that came before the Sages, and they said: In any case of uncertainty with regard to slaughter, the slaughter is not valid.

讻诇 住驻拽 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诇讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 住驻拽 砖讛讛 住驻拽 讚专住

The Gemara asks: With regard to the expansive formulation: With regard to any case of uncertainty with regard to slaughter, what does it serve to add? Does it not serve to add a case like this one where there is uncertainty whether the knife was notched before or after the slaughter? The Gemara answers: No, it serves to add a case of uncertainty whether he interrupted the slaughter in the middle, or uncertainty whether he pressed the knife on the simanim. If he did either, it invalidates the slaughter.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讗讬转讬诇讬讚讗 讘讛 专讬注讜转讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讛讻讗 住讻讬谉 讗讬转专注讗讬 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讗讬转专注讗讬

The Gemara asks: And in what way is uncertainty whether he interrupted the slaughter or pressed the knife different from uncertainty whether the knife became notched before or after the slaughter? The Gemara answers: There, in the case of uncertainty with regard to interruption or pressing, the flaw developed in the animal, and the slaughter is not valid. Here, in the case of uncertainty whether the knife became notched before or after the slaughter, a flaw developed in the knife but a flaw did not develop in the animal, and the slaughter is valid.

讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻砖诇讗 砖讬讘专 讘讛 注爪诐 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讻砖砖讬讘专 讘讛 注爪诐 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 砖讬讘专 讘讛 注爪诐 讗诇讗 讘诪讗讬 讗讬驻讙讬诐 讗讬诪讗 讘注爪诐 讚诪驻专拽转 讗讬驻讙讬诐

And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna that the slaughter is not valid in a case where he did not break a bone with the knife. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda that the slaughter is valid in a case where he broke a bone with the knife. Learn by inference that Rav 岣sda rules that the slaughter is valid even if he did not break a bone with the knife. The Gemara asks: But if he did not break bones, on what was the knife notched? It must have been on the hide. Why, then, is the slaughter valid? The Gemara answers: Say that it was notched on the neck bone after he competed slaughtering the animal.

讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜讟专祝 专讘 讬讜住祝 注讚 转诇讬住专 讞讬讜转讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽诪讬讬转讗 诇讗 讻专讘 讞住讚讗 讜诇讘专 诪拽诪讬讬转讗

The Gemara relates: There was an incident, and Rav Yosef deemed as many as thirteen animals tereifot when he discovered the knife was notched after slaughtering the final animal. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav Yosef issue his ruling? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, who holds that the concern is that the knife was notched by the animal鈥檚 hide, and he ruled that even the first animal is forbidden? The Gemara answers: No, perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, who holds that the notch is attributed to the neck bone, and they are all forbidden except for the first animal.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗讬 讻专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讻讚讬 诪转诇讗 转诇讬谞谉 诪诪讗讬 讚讘注爪诐 讚诪驻专拽转 讚拽诪讬讬转讗 讗讬驻讙讬诐 讚诇诪讗 讘注爪诐 讚诪驻专拽转 讚讘转专讬讬转讗 讗讬驻讙讬诐

And if you wish, say instead: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, since we attribute the notch to the neck bone as a leniency, from where is it ascertained that it is on the neck bone of the first animal that it was notched? Perhaps it is on the neck bone of the last animal that it was notched, and all of the animals are permitted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讜转讗 讘讬谉 讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇诪讬驻住诇 拽诪讬讬转讗 诇讗 讻专讘 讞住讚讗 讜诇讗讻砖讜专讬 讘转专讬讬转讗

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Rav Kahana requires an examination of the knife between each and every act of slaughter. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav Kahana issue his ruling? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, and he stated the halakha to invalidate the slaughter of the first animal that he slaughtered if he discovers a notch in the knife? The Gemara answers: No, perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, according to the first of the two explanations of the ruling of Rav Yosef, who holds that if a notch is found it is attributed to the neck bone, and examination of the knife is required to validate the slaughter of the next animal.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转讬讘注讬 谞诪讬 讘讚讬拽转 讞讻诐 注讚 讗讞讚 谞讗诪谉 讘讗讬住讜专讬谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪注讬拽专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛专讗讜转 住讻讬谉 诇讞讻诐 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚讜 砖诇 讞讻诐

The Gemara raises an objection: If so, and the reference is to the examination before slaughter, the knife should require the examination of a Torah scholar that was required by the Sages. The Gemara explains: There is no need for a Sage to examine the knife, based on the principle: The testimony of one witness, in this case the slaughterer, is deemed credible with regard to ritual matters. The Gemara challenges: If so, even from the outset, examination of the knife by a Torah scholar should also not be required. The Gemara explains: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that the Sages said to show the knife to a Torah scholar only due to the requirement to show deference to the Sage? Once deference was shown before the initial slaughter, it is no longer necessary to do so.

诪谞讗 讛讗 诪诇转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讜拽讬 诪讬诇转讗 讗讞讝拽讬讛

搂 Apropos the statement of Rav Huna that an animal during its lifetime exists with the presumptive status of prohibition, and therefore in cases of uncertainty whether the animal was properly slaughtered, one rules stringently and it is prohibited to eat its flesh, the Gemara asks: From where is this matter that the Sages said: Establish the status of the matter on the basis of its presumptive status, derived?

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪讗 讛讻讛谉 诪谉 讛讘讬转 讗诇 驻转讞 讛讘讬转 讜讛住讙讬专 讗转 讛讘讬转 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讚诇诪讗 讗讚谞驻讬拽 讜讗转讗 讘爪专 诇讬讛 砖讬注讜专讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜拽讬 讗讞讝拽讬讛

Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said that the verse states with regard to leprosy of houses that after a priest views a leprous mark: 鈥淎nd the priest shall emerge from the house to the entrance of the house, and quarantine the house seven days鈥 (Leviticus 14:38). The Gemara asks: How can the priest quarantine the house based on his viewing the leprous mark? Perhaps as he was emerging and coming out of the house, the size of the leprous mark diminished and it lacks the requisite measure for leprosy. Rather, is it not due to the fact that we say: Establish the status of the matter on the basis of its presumptive status?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讚专讱 讗讞讜专讬讜 讚拽讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 谞驻拽

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov objects to that proof: And perhaps the verse is referring to a case where the priest emerged backward, as in that case, the priest sees the leprous mark as he emerges.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 砖转讬 转砖讜讘讜转 讘讚讘专 讞讚讗 讚讬爪讬讗讛 讚专讱 讗讞讜专讬讜 诇讗 砖诪讛 讬爪讬讗讛 讜注讜讚 讗讞讜专讬 讛讚诇转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚驻转讞 讘讬讛 讻讜讜转讗 讜讛转谞谉 讘讬转 讗驻诇 讗讬谉 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘讜 讞诇讜谞讜转 诇专讗讜转 讗转 谞讙注讜

Abaye said to him that there are two refutations of that statement. One is that emerging backward is not called emerging, and the priest would not fulfill the verse 鈥淎nd the priest shall emerge from the house鈥 by doing so. And furthermore, in a case where the leprous mark is behind the door, what is there to say? Even walking backward would not enable the priest to see it. And if you would say that the priest can open a window in the wall to enable him to see the leprous mark, but didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Nega鈥檌m 2:3): In a dark house one may not open windows to enable him to see his leprous mark?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讚拽讗诪专转 讬爪讬讗讛 讚专讱 讗讞讜专讬讜 诇讗 砖诪讛 讬爪讬讗讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讬讜讻讬讞 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讬爪讬讗讛 讜转谞谉 讬爪讗 讜讘讗 诇讜 讚专讱 讻谞讬住转讜 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讘讬转 讗驻诇 讗讬谉 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘讜 讞诇讜谞讜转 诇专讗讜转 讗转 谞讙注讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转讞讝拽 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讞讝拽 讗讬转讞讝拽

Rava said to Abaye: With regard to that which you say: Emerging backward is not called emerging, the case of the High Priest on Yom Kippur will prove that this is not so, as emerging is written in his regard (see Leviticus 16:18), and we learned in a mishna (Yoma 52b): The High Priest emerged and came out backward in the manner of his entry, facing the Ark in the Holy of Holies. And with regard to that which you say: In a dark house, one may not open windows to enable him to see his leprous mark, this statement applies only in a case where the existence of a leprous mark in the house was not yet established; but in a case where the existence of a leprous mark in the house was already established, it was established, and the priest may open a window to view it.

转谞讬讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讜讬爪讗 讛讻讛谉 诪谉 讛讘讬转 讬讻讜诇 讬诇讱 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讬住讙讬专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇 驻转讞 讛讘讬转

It is taught in a baraita not in accordance with the opinion of Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov, who suggested that the verse is referring to a case where the priest emerged from the house backward and therefore there is no proof that one lets the matter remain in its presumptive status. It is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall emerge from the house to the entrance of the house and quarantine the house.鈥 One might have thought that he may go into his own house and quarantine the house from there; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭o the entrance of the house,鈥 referring to the house that is being quarantined.

讗讬 驻转讞 讛讘讬转 讬讻讜诇 讬注诪讜讚 转讞转 讛诪砖拽讜祝 讜讬住讙讬专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谉 讛讘讬转 注讚 砖讬爪讗 诪谉 讛讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 注讜诪讚 讘爪讚 讛诪砖拽讜祝 讜诪住讙讬专

If he must emerge to the entrance of the house, one might have thought that he may stand beneath the lintel and quarantine the house; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔rom the house,鈥 indicating that he does not quarantine the house until he emerges from the house in its entirety. How so? He stands alongside the lintel and quarantines the house.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 讛诇讱 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讛住讙讬专 讗讜 砖注诪讚 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜讛住讙讬专 砖讛住讙专讜 诪讜住讙专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛住讙讬专 讗转 讛讘讬转 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The baraita concludes: And from where is it derived that if he went inside his own house and quarantined the leprous house, or that if he stood inside the leprous house and quarantined it, that his quarantine is a valid quarantine? It is derived from that which the verse states: 鈥淎nd quarantine the house,鈥 meaning in any case. Apparently, the quarantine is valid even if he is unable to see the leprous mark, as the mark remains in its previous presumptive status.

讜专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘

And Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov interprets the baraita in accordance with his opinion

Scroll To Top